Preamble

The House met at half-past Two O'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Violent Crime

Mr. Simon Hughes: What his policies are for reducing the level of violence in Northern Ireland. [154338]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): The Government continue to support the efforts of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to reduce violence in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hughes: Against a background that is generally encouraging for the future of a peaceful Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State confirm that the reduction of violence among young people will be a priority for him and his colleagues as well as the Chief Constable? I am talking not about paramilitary violence but about burglaries, violence against the person and sexual offences, which show an upward trend. Will he consider favourably organisations such as Regenerate? It has the advantage of providing for former paramilitaries to work with young people to teach them the evil of their ways. Such role models are a way forward for Northern Ireland and may set the crime figures on a downward trend.

Dr. Reid: Yes; like all hon. Members I condemn and abhor crime, especially crimes that inflict damage on human beings. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We shall continue to bear down on paramilitary and non-paramilitary violent crime and to support the Chief Constable as much as we can.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the Secretary of State agree that the people of Northern Ireland wake up to a daily diet of extreme violence, the manner of which is changing from the baseball bat to the gun again? Those crimes may be permitted or committed by paramilitaries, but will he undertake to set up a special

team in each locality in Northern Ireland to deal with drugs rackets and protection rackets for which organised crime or paramilitaries are responsible?

Dr. Reid: Yes. We should make it clear that the perpetrators of violence have no legitimacy, mandate or support. They are abhorred by the vast majority of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland.
We take seriously paramilitaries' wider crimes, which include racketeering, profiteering and sometimes drugs. We have therefore established a taskforce on organised crime, which the Minister of State oversees. We shall continue to do all in our power to tackle gangsterism and mafia-like activity from the paramilitaries.

Mr. Cecil Walker: Is the Secretary of State aware of the current unacceptable violence in north Belfast? It reflects a lack of policing on the ground. Does he realise that some of the Patten recommendations have had an adverse effect on police morale, which has resulted in a high incidence of stress-related absenteeism? What are the Government's intentions for redressing the imbalance?

Dr. Reid: I am aware of the activities in north Belfast. That is why the Royal Ulster Constabulary, supplemented by the Army, has put in extra effort with some success.
It is a time of tremendous change for the RUC, and there is a great deal of stress on those who serve in the police service in Northern Ireland. The Chief Constable and the change management team are making every effort to ensure that that stress is alleviated.
The new Police Service of Northern Ireland benefits the whole community, not only the nationalists. I hope that it will be acceptable to the whole community, and that the whole community will participate in it. It will be one of the key points that underpins a peace process that will ultimately reduce violence inside and outside the paramilitary groups.

Mr. David Winnick: I acknowledge what my right hon. Friend has said. Has he estimated how many people are alive today in Northern Ireland and in Britain because of the Good Friday agreement? We should not forget that. If decommissioning immunity is extended beyond May, does he intend June to be the target date for some genuine decommissioning, which we all want to happen?

Dr. Reid: Given the tragic losses for more than 3,600 families in the recent decades of the troubles, the peace process has been enormously beneficial despite our difficulties and challenges. The order that I tabled yesterday is technically necessary to ensure that immunity from prosecution for those involved in decommissioning weapons continues after 19 May, when it would otherwise expire. That does not affect the target date of June this year, which we and the Irish Government set last May for achieving the remaining steps necessary to secure full implementation of the Good Friday agreement.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Minister will want to congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), who was telling us recently in our newspapers that there was no point in coming here


because it was a waste of time. It is nice to know that, at the end of this Parliament, he has made his maiden speech. [Interruption.] When one throws a stone among dogs, the one that is hit the hardest barks the loudest.
Will the Minister tell us what his attitude is to the fact that the Irish Republican Army members of staff list has been issued? Is he not alarmed that three Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Martin McGuinness, Gerard Adams and Patrick Doherty, are mentioned as members of the inner council of the IRA? Mr. Adams has declared that he is talking with Downing street every day. Does not the Minister realise how people who are sorrowing, and will always sorrow, for their loved ones feel about the Government being prepared to hold negotiations with such people? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise on this side of the House.

Dr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was a wee bit of noise on that side of the House as well.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) on the continued support that he has given to the peace process, which has been a boon to many families in Northern Ireland. Secondly, I think that the point raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) was based on a newspaper report on an apparently leaked document based on an intelligence source. I think that that is what he was referring to. As I never respond to newspaper reports, leaked documents or intelligence sources, I am sure that he will understand why I shall not respond to him on that point.
I shall say only that if we are to achieve a transition from the terrible tragedies of the past 30—indeed, many more—years and the loss of life involved, a lot of political decisions will have to be taken, and a lot of discussions will have to be entered into. They will be not only complex and challenging, but painful for everyone involved. The prize and the reward for the people of Northern Ireland is great enough for all of us to swallow our prejudices and try to recognise the views and histories of the side across from us. It is ultimately the people of Northern Ireland as a whole who will benefit from that.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that confidence in the new police service will be a prime concern in the coming years. Will he, therefore, make a statement that, once Mrs. O'Loan has finished her inquiries into the Hamill affair, he will set up a public inquiry to look into all the circumstances surrounding that tragic death and its aftermath?

Dr. Reid: Two inquiries are already going on into that case, and prosecutions might arise from either or both of them. Once those inquiries, and any prosecutions, have finished, and if there is still widespread concern, we have not ruled out any course of action.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Are the Secretary of State's commendable efforts to reduce violence likely to be helped by giving an amnesty to prisoners on the run? Does he agree that, because the Maze escapees have

been allowed to walk away free, they have been given the opportunity to benefit from their escape, which is quite wrong in a lawful society?

Dr. Reid: With respect, I must correct the right hon. Gentleman: there is not an amnesty; those people are on licence. Secondly, this is not news; it has been known for some considerable time. Thirdly, it is part of an overall peace process. If he is asking me whether this is a constituent element of a process that will result in the diminution of violence and a better, fairer, more decent, prosperous and secure Northern Ireland, my answer is yes.

Mr. MacKay: Inevitably, most people will consider that to be an amnesty. The Secretary of State is aware that the Prime Minister promised the people of Northern Ireland a parallel Process, which we strongly supported, that meant that terrorist prisoners would be released with all illegally held arms and explosives being decommissioned at the same time. The simple truth is that not one gun nor one ounce of Semtex has been handed in, but more than 400 terrorist prisoners are back on the streets. That is a serious breach of the Belfast agreement. Does he agree that it needs rectifying quickly?

Dr. Reid: If the right hon. Gentleman is asking whether we want early decommissioning as part of the peace process, the answer is yes. We made our view known last year: we want to achieve substantial progress on all elements of the Good Friday agreement by June. We continue to press for that because we believe that moving forward with a new political institution in Northern Ireland in which all sides participate and forming a new police service in Northern Ireland will lead to normalisation and demilitarisation from the point of view of the British Government; of course, an additional element of that is decommissioning. We continue to press on it.

Organised Crime

Mr. Steve McCabe: If he will make a statement on measures being taken to combat organised crime in Northern Ireland. [154340]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Last Friday, I launched the first-ever publicly available assessment of the threat to Northern Ireland from organised crime and the strategy for countering that threat. The threat assessment is the work of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the strategy is the work of the Northern Ireland organised crime taskforce, which was established in September last year.

Mr. McCabe: Particularly in view of our present difficulties, does my right hon. Friend regard the organised smuggling of sheep and cattle as a serious criminal activity? What plans has he to deal with it?

Mr. Ingram: Yes, I share that view. The foot and mouth outbreak is primarily a matter for the devolved Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. However, the organised crime taskforce takes livestock smuggling seriously and work is already under way to tackle that harmful threat. The recently launched threat assessment identifies at least two organised crime groups involved in


illegal movement across the land border with the Republic of Ireland, not to mention a number of individuals who are also involved. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the RUC and other law enforcement agencies, the devolved Administration and the Government are determined to take that on with full vigour.

Mr. David Trimble: I am sure that the Minister has seen the welcome condemnation by the Irish agriculture Minister of the code of silence that has existed among the smugglers of South Armagh and Louth—the people who brought foot and mouth to Ireland. Although the measures that the Minister announced last Friday are welcome, does he agree that if we are to get on top of organised crime—in respect of which the smuggling of animals, fuel, tobacco and drugs is the most significant manifestation—we need to find ways to mobilise all society to change the culture of those areas so that people there realise that they cannot continue in the state of lawlessness that has marked them over the past few decades?

Mr. Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good and valid point. Part of the reason for the law enforcement agencies being unable to achieve more success is that there is so much fear and intimidation in Northern Ireland. That makes it difficult to bring people to justice. Part of the strategy that we have launched, which he fully supports, is to try to create greater public awareness of the extent of the problem and the way in which it corrodes, eating into the very heart of the society of Northern Ireland. That relates to another issue that he raised—the cross jurisdictional effect. Crime knows no borders and no boundaries. Together, the Governments will look for ways in which we can further tackle the threat.

Mr. John McFall: I congratulate the Minister on his latest initiative to crack down on the 400 paramilitary and non-paramilitary individuals who are involved in organised crime, but does he remember the comments of Danny Morrison, the IRA propagandist, who said:
It is hard to maintain the revolution when people have a colour TV in the living room and a car in the drive"?
The Northern Ireland economy has been robust over the past few years and unemployment, on 1997 levels, is down by more than 40 per cent. What initiative does my right hon. Friend have to keep promoting that fall, getting young people into jobs and taking them away from the lure of the paramilitary organisations?

Mr. Ingram: As the House knows, my hon. Friend served for a time as a Northern Ireland Minister, and followed me as Minister responsible for the economy. We can take some satisfaction from the way in which that economy is succeeding on the back of policies implemented by the present Government. The best message that could be sent from the House would be sent by the return of a Labour Government, by the continuation of policies that have been successful, and by that United Kingdom Government's working with the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland to increase prosperity

there. That can better be achieved when we eliminate organised crime from Northern Ireland society, and bring lasting peace to Northern Ireland.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal for quiet on both sides of the House? The noise that is being made is unfair to hon. Members who are listening to Northern Ireland questions.

Real IRA

Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on his Department's assessment of the relationship between the Real and the Provisional IRA. [154341]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Real IRA has its roots within the Provisional IRA, and evolved as a consequence of a breakaway of disaffected PIRA members over their organisation's support for the political/peace process. We believe that the Real IRA and the Provisional IRA are entirely separate organisations.

Mr. Robertson: Does the Minister not think that the use of Semtex by the Real IRA might suggest at least some collusion between that organisation and at least some members of the Provisional IRA?

Mr. Ingram: No, I do not, and there is no evidence that that is the case. What I do accept is that the Real IRA and the PIRA are linked by a common cause; they are also linked by a callous disregard for human life and the human rights of their fellow citizens.
The IRA and PIRA want to achieve a united Ireland, but Sinn Fein and the IRA have signalled that they are engaged in a transition from conflict to the democratic process. They differ from the RIRA in that regard. There is no evidence to suggest that the Real IRA is acting as a surrogate organisation for the IRA.

Mr. William Thompson: What information has the Minister requested or received from the Irish Government about a recent attempt by the Provisional IRA, using guns smuggled from Florida, to murder an alleged member of the Real IRA? It is argued that he stole IRA weapons. Does that event cause the Minister concern, and what impact does he expect it to have on the peace process?

Mr. Ingram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is only too well aware of the increasingly close co-operation that exists between the two Governments in tackling the real threat and menace posed by the Real IRA. It is manifest in the co-operation between the Garda Siochana and the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the other law enforcement agencies. That is the best way in which we can tackle the situation. The message that should be sent by the House—I know that it would be sent by the hon. Gentleman—is that anyone with information about the conduct of those


carrying out such acts, whatever the organisation to which they belong, should come forward to give evidence and help bring such people to justice.

Mr. David Taylor: Given that the Real IRA has rejected the peace process and will not engage with the de Chastelain commission, should not the United States Government designate it as a proscribed organisation? What action has the Minister taken to bring that about?

Mr. Ingram: The Government are determined to explore every option available to disrupt the activities of members of the Real IRA who continue to use violence. For that reason, the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have made joint representations to the United States authorities for the Real IRA to be designated under US law. We have submitted information in support of that request.
The decision to designate the Real IRA under anti-terrorist legislation is ultimately a matter for the US authorities, but they have been made aware of the two Governments' strong views.

Police

Mr. David Ruffley: What recent representations he has received regarding recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [154342]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): Recruiting to the Police Service of Northern Ireland began on 23 February. The level of interest has greatly exceeded expectations. About 20,000 inquiries have now been made, and by 26 March nearly 3,800 applications had been received. The closing date for applications is this Friday.

Mr. Ruffley: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. He will be aware that, in the past three years, the RUC's reserve and regular strength has decreased from 12,700 to 11,500. Will he detail the active steps that he will be taking to reverse that depressing trend?

Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman did not mention the target of about 7,500 that was outlined in the Patten commission report and that has some relevance to his question. We are taking various measures to remedy the situation, not the least of which is our current recruitment. Not only have we had an overwhelming response to that, but it has been targeted on a 50–50 basis, so that both sides of the community and both traditions will be involved. We hope to have a police service that is more acceptable to the whole community. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am in constant touch with the Chief Constable to ensure that the operational capability of the RUC and of the future police service will not be diminished beneath the necessary levels.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my right hon. Friend know how many of those applications have come from women applicants, and does he have any idea of whether the number of women recruited into the police

service is going up or reversing? Does he agree that the more women there are in senior positions, the more it will help to recruit women into the police service?

Dr. Reid: I am afraid that I cannot as yet tell my hon. Friend the breakdown of the figures on grounds either of sex or of religion. That will come at a later stage. However, not only do we of course welcome equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland, but we have incorporated—probably to a greater degree than anywhere else in the United Kingdom or, indeed, in Europe—the principle of equality of opportunity.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Has the Social Democratic and Labour Party provided the Minister with an explanation of its apparent continuing unwillingness to give wholehearted support to the initiative to encourage more Catholics to apply to the police service? Does the Minister know why it has not yet nominated its representatives to the Policing Board?

Dr. Reid: There have been many constructive discussions with the SDLP over many months. [Interruption.] When possible, the Government have moved to meet the SDLP's concerns, and I believe that the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 is better for that— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.

Dr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We hope very much that the SDLP will support recruitment—especially because of the figures that I have cited of no fewer than 20,000 inquiries and, so far, of about 3,800 applications to the new Police Service of Northern Ireland. I very much hope that, following the talks at Hillsborough led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the SDLP will see that the gap between us has narrowed and find its way to joining the new Policing Board.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State agree that we owe a tremendous debt to the RUC reserves? Does he also agree that, in giving that service, they have had the least security of tenure and least regard, but have made a huge sacrifice for society in Northern Ireland? Will he assure me that members of the RUC reserves who wish to join the new Police Service of Northern Ireland will be given every opportunity and encouragement to apply so that we can make use of their experience and dedication?

Dr. Reid: I can assure my hon. Friend that they, with everyone else, will be welcome to join the new police service. I also have no hesitation in according to the RUC the accolade of the whole House for the sacrifices that it has made over very many years in fighting terrorism. Indeed, that was recognised by the award that was given to the RUC. I hope that the widows of RUC officers who died fighting terrorism before 1982 will feel that their sacrifice has been recognised in some small way by the grant that we made recently. That grant was made


available after representations from, among others, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State share our dismay that, despite the Patten reforms—some of which have caused great pain to the RUC—nationalist parties in Northern Ireland, the Irish Government and the Catholic Church still refuse to recommend that young Roman Catholic men and women join the police?

Dr. Reid: The police service that we are creating in Northern Ireland is not merely a negotiating concession to the nationalist side. We are creating a service that will be accountable to, and respected by, the whole community, all of whom will participate in it. That will be of enormous benefit to the whole of Northern Ireland.
Given the number of applications and inquiries that have been made with regard to the new police service, I hope that parties on the nationalist side will take the opportunity to join the Policing Board. I believe that the gap is narrowing among members of the SDLP, and I welcome the positive statements recently made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. John Wilkinson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does the Prime Minister remember the manifesto for London, which his party issued at the last general election and which bore his signature? In it, he said that his policies would make London a showcase for Britain. Can he imagine the untold misery that millions of commuters in the capital will suffer on the underground tomorrow, thanks to the failure of his policies? Is not it a fact that the unions, the Commissioner of Transport for London and the Mayor of London—whose job the Prime Minister created—all lack any confidence in the system? Does he agree with the commissioner that, if safety is to be ensured, the commissioner should have the right to decide the priorities in the capital spending programme—or will it all be left to the judges?

The Prime Minister: First, a few facts. There is an extra £1 billion in investment under this Government, over and above the plans of the previous Government who were supported by the hon. Gentleman. Secondly, the public-private partnership will guarantee a substantial uplift in investment in the London underground. That money will come not only from the public sector,

but from the private sector, and it will be way over and above any investment made by the Conservative Government.
Thirdly, with regard to plans for the tube, I remind the hon. Gentleman that until the Conservative party decided to change its position a few days ago, he and everyone else in his party supported the total privatisation of the London underground. That really would be a disaster for the underground.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman is wrong in what he said about safety. Safety will remain in the public sector under the PPP.

Mr. John Hume: Given that the Government and the Opposition parties accept that the most democratic electoral system for local government, Assembly and European elections in Northern Ireland is the proportional representation system, does not the Prime Minister think that that system should be introduced for elections to this House?

The Prime Minister: The circumstances of Northern Ireland are very particular, and do not necessarily have implications for the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. William Hague: In the past 48 hours of the foot and mouth crisis, it has become clear that the Government are contemplating what we all, on both sides of the House, previously regarded as unthinkable: a policy of widespread vaccination. The Opposition share the distress of many in the countryside that the crisis has reached this point, but we welcome the fact that contingency plans are being drawn up—in fact, we called for such plans—as a last resort. Will the Prime Minister clarify exactly what kind of vaccination policy is being considered? Is it the vaccination of a limited number of animals, which will then be slaughtered, or the vaccination of a far greater number? What are the implications of that for export resumption?

The Prime Minister: It is correct, as I said to the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago, that we must consider the option of vaccination. It is being considered for particular areas where the disease has spread to many parts. Obviously, in other areas, the disease has been far more easily controlled and the number of cases is fewer. I think it best not to announce the precise details until we have discussed the matter with representatives of the National Farmers Union. Obviously, it is a contingency that we have to look at. I understand the huge resistance in parts of the farming community, because of the difficulties for the farming industry itself. Vaccination is no easy solution—that has to be said clearly. However, it is necessary to consider it because it has clearly emerged during the past few days, as more and more evidence has come through of the number of sheep movements prior to the detection and reporting of the disease—I think that I told the House a couple of weeks ago that there might have been as many as 2,000 sheep movements before the disease was detected, but now it is clear that that was an understatement—that probably about 1.35 million sheep were exported or moved during the month of February. Therefore, if the disease was incubating then, it has been far more widespread than hitherto thought. That is why in certain areas, where the disease is particularly strong,


we have to consider the option of vaccination, but we shall discuss that very carefully with people in the farming community before we announce the details.

Mr. Hague: Clearly, the Government have been forced to consider a vaccination policy because the disease continues to spread at an alarming rate. I put it to the Prime Minister that there continues to be a serious lack of resources on the front line in particular areas. In a situation where every hour counts, many farmers report that it takes many hours to get through to MAFF on the telephone even to report a case of foot and mouth. The need for more vets remains, even though many more have been recruited.
This morning, I received a letter from a Ministry vet of 40 years experience who retired at Christmas. He said:
Yesterday … I heard three times on radio and television that more vets are required … Last Friday … I phoned the MAFF offices at Exeter and Bristol … and offered my services. I was thanked for the offer of help … I have heard nothing since.
Will the Prime Minister ensure that the whole government machine gets its act together to make the most of those resources?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, I do not know about the particular case the right hon. Gentleman mentions. When I was in Worcester yesterday, I met retired vets who had been brought back into service. There are now about seven times the usual number of vets in the state veterinary service. We continue to recruit them from whatever source we possibly can.
On the situation on the ground, of course it is extremely difficult—especially in areas such as Cumbria or Devon, where they have to deal with a large number of outbreaks. A huge logistical effort is required. Sometimes, the perception is of an outbreak on a farm with perhaps a few hundred cattle or sheep, and that that is easy to deal with—but some of those farms have several thousand livestock spread over a large distance. It is incredibly difficult for the people to deal with that. However, every resource they ask for we put in, as far as we possibly can. The key matter is to ensure that the report to slaughter time of 24 hours is maintained in every part of the country. In Cumbria, that is proving extremely difficult, but in most parts of the country that is now up and running.

Mr. Hague: Clearly, the vets and soldiers involved in tackling this crisis are doing a tremendous job and are working extremely hard. However, in every way one looks at it at present, the crisis is getting worse. Yesterday, we had a record number of outbreaks, and three of the outbreaks in recent days have been in new areas— [Interruption.] We had 47 outbreaks, so if it is not a record, it is very near to a record. Three of the outbreaks in recent days have been in entirely new areas, including a further outbreak today. The backlog of infected animals awaiting slaughter has doubled in the past week to more than 250,000 and the number of carcases has reached 118,000. When does the Prime Minister think that this disease will truly be under control?

The Prime Minister: Let me first correct some of the information that the right hon. Gentleman has given. There is an enormous effort on the ground. The Army

logistics team is doing a superb job, the vets are working every hour that they possibly can, and slaughtermen and contractors are being hired at a huge rate.
In respect of the daily figures, we have to be cautious because they are revised day after day as fresh information comes in from different parts of the country. However, I can say that in the last week almost 200,000 animals have been slaughtered. That is getting on for double the figure for the week before. About 130,000 carcases have been disposed of in the last week, which is getting on for three times the figure for the week before. This information is being upgraded the entire time.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me how we could be sure when the disease would end. The answer is that we cannot be sure at the present time, for the very reason that I gave a moment or two ago. If thousands of sheep movements did indeed take place before the disease was detected, it is important to realise that there will be certain parts of the country—Cumbria, very obviously—where it is extremely difficult to tackle the disease by the means originally contemplated. That is precisely why we have to look at issues like vaccination.
However, in other areas of the country—about six or seven of them—there have been one or two outbreaks, and, thankfully, there have not been any more cases in the last week or two. Northern Ireland is an example of that, and the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development is now applying for disease-free status for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland had a case early on, but that has not been followed by another case. Therefore, there are areas of the country where, at the present time—and I stress "present time"—we are managing to keep the disease under control and eradicate it. However, in some of these areas, especially in Cumbria but not limited to Cumbria, that is very difficult, for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. Hague: We are entitled to ask when the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the disease will be under control—[Interruption.] We are entitled to ask, because the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said three weeks ago that it was under control, but the chief scientist said that it was not under control—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to have to shout.

Mr. Hague: There is a major crisis in this country, which some Labour Members wish to ignore. We are entitled to ask when the disease will be under control, because the Minister said that it was under control, the chief scientist said that it was not under control, and the Prime Minister said that it was on track to being under control. We are entitled to ask when the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it will be brought under control—that is terminology that the Government use.
The Minister in charge of the rural taskforce said yesterday that this is an enormous crisis, in some ways unprecedented, and he is right. The Prime Minister rightly said yesterday that he would be straining every sinew to tackle the crisis, and we welcome that. "Every sinew" must mean every appropriate military resource, every available vet, and every ounce of the Prime Minister's


energy and attention. Does he agree that he will have to continue to strain every sinew until the disease is brought fully under control?

The Prime Minister: Of course we must do everything that we can to ensure that the disease is brought under control and eradicated, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that anyone is ignoring the seriousness of the problem. We all recognise how serious it is, which is precisely why we are taking the measures that we are.
Having recently visited Devon, Cumbria and Worcestershire, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the people to whom I spoke realise that every resource that they require from the centre is being provided. However, the situation is difficult, particularly in those areas where the disease has taken hold.
I would also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we have already slaughtered more livestock in this outbreak than we did in the entirety of the 1967 outbreak, which continued for over eight months. Of course, the big difference between then and now is that there were far fewer movements of livestock then than there are now.
I agree that we have to make every possible effort to control and eradicate the disease. I hope that everyone in this House understands that. All that I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman is that, at the Present time at least, we are able to look at some success in certain areas because the cases have not been repeated. However, in some areas there have been so many movements of sheep that the situation is difficult, and there is no point in pretending otherwise.

Ms Claire Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of those farmers who are in the fortunate position of still being able to sell their livestock at market are facing reductions in prices—in some cases, for lambs, of up to £11 and perhaps even more? Will he take this opportunity first, to encourage the British public to continue to buy British meat and support our British farmers, and secondly, to ask our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to review whether our farmers and consumers are getting the best deal from the retailers, who do not appear to be passing on those reductions to the consumers?

The Prime Minister: On the last point about prices, I know that that concern is often expressed, and we have discussed it with the retailers and the farming industry. On the first point, it is worth stressing that in addition to the £600 million agrimonetary compensation that we are paying out, there is an additional £150 million agrimonetary compensation and more than £150 million compensation for the animals slaughtered.
In addition, the animal welfare scheme has now been substantially upgraded by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and we are making every effort to ensure that the proper processes are in place so that people can claim under the animal welfare scheme. Again, even with the best will in world, those farmers who have lost their stock face the problem of restocking, and then they face the problem of how, in the future, we devise the right sustainable and viable strategy for farming. That is something that we have

already committed ourselves to sit down and work out with the farming communities when the immediate spread of the disease is over.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that if any Labour Member uses racist language or language that invites racist instincts in this country, he will without hesitation, on principle and on the spot, withdraw the parliamentary Whip from such a Member?

The Prime Minister: I have made it clear that it is entirely unacceptable for any Labour candidate to use language of a racist nature or language calculated to stir up racist feelings in this country. The right hon. Gentleman and I—and, indeed, all the main political parties—signed up to the Commission for Racial Equality statement. We will abide by that statement, as I am sure all political parties will.

Mr. Kennedy: I welcome the Prime Minister's comments. I agree that all the main party leaders in this country signed the pledge from the Commission for Racial Equality. In particular, if we are in a pre-election mode in this country, is it not deeply important that we ensure that those words are worth more than the paper they are written on?

The Prime Minister: It is generally accepted on both sides of the House that Britain benefits from being a multicultural, multiracial society and that many people, including many hon. Members, have backgrounds from other countries. I dare say that virtually all of us have in us some blood from other races and nations. In this modern day and age, surely it is not merely a principle that is morally right, but in our self-interest that anyone, irrespective of race or ethnic background, is a full and proper member of our society.

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: When I arrived in the House in May 1997, I became acutely aware that many of us were suffering from a very serious medical condition. However, I subsequently realised that, for most of us, it is a selective condition—but for millions of people in the United Kingdom deafness is a real problem. I want to take this opportunity to thank those hon. Members who signed my early-day motion on testing for deafness in babies.
Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to ensure that that programme is extended to all regions of the United Kingdom, so that all babies can benefit from the test, which will undoubtedly improve their educational outcomes?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend draws attention to a very serious problem. Many children are perceived to have particular learning disabilities, whereas their true problem is one of deafness. The Government's neo-natal hearing screening scheme is now being piloted at some 20 sites across the country. Subject to the successful


piloting of the scheme, it is our intention to introduce it nationwide and to try to ensure that, for those children who have that disability, it is spotted early and dealt with.

Mr. Tim Loughton: Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.] While Labour Members jeer, large parts of the country are living in seige conditions—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Loughton: Labour Members may jeer, but as they do large parts of the country are living under siege conditions and many thousands of our countrymen face losing their livelihoods. Will the Prime Minister now give us his estimate for the number of dead livestock by May?

The Prime Minister: The number of dead livestock obviously depends on the number of premises in which the disease is detected. What we have—[Interruption.] It is impossible for me to predict precisely the number of premises in which the disease will be detected in the coming two months. It is important, however, that where the disease is detected in any premises—in other words, they are infected premises—the animals are slaughtered within 24 hours. As I said, with the exception of Cumbria, where that is very difficult to do because of the spread of the disease, that is now happening in the vast majority of infected areas.

Liz Blackman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some private hospitals are charging different amounts for the same operation—a lower amount if patients pay cash up front and up to twice the amount if the operation is paid for by a private health insurer? To get round that problem, some private health insurers encourage their clients to pay in the first instance and to split the difference on the balance. Given that evidence, does he think that the whole area of private health and private health insurance needs to come with a Government health warning, particularly in the light of the Conservative party's policies?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the practice to which my hon. Friend refers. However, many people believe that the national health service provides, and should provide, the best guarantee for them of good treatment. An enormous amount of change and investment is necessary, and it is this Government who are making the biggest substantial investment in the national health service since its creation.

Mr. Tom King: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that, in the face of the worst crisis in my constituency and the south-west generally in my time as a Member of Parliament—the regional development agency has just assessed that, this year, it will cost the south-west £1 billion, with the cost to be borne by businesses of all sorts—and with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food virtually at breaking point and other Departments desperately trying to provide information, the role of an MP becomes absolutely critical? Therefore, I would find it inconceivable if my

constituents were suddenly to be unrepresented at the time of the greatest crisis that they have faced. This is a national emergency.
Has the Prime Minister noticed the contribution that Brigadier Birtwhistle has made, and is he aware that there is a regional brigade commander in every region of this country? In the face of this national crisis, with the Prime Minister having recognised at last the contribution that the Army can make, can I encourage him to give it full responsibility in the regions?

The Prime Minister: The Army has full responsibility for all logistical operations in its regions. Based on talks with people in the areas most affected, I think that the relationship between civil service officials and the military is working well. The position, however, is very difficult, particularly in areas such as Cumbria where the disease is at its height.
There are two separate effects on business: the effect on the farming industry and the effect on the tourism industry. On tourism, it is important that both sides of the House send out the clear message that we want people to go into the countryside, but stay off the farmland. That is the right message to give to people. There are masses of things for people to do, and there is no reason for them to cancel their holidays. Although we can look and are looking at what Government help can be given, the single biggest support that we can give to the tourism industry is custom, trade and business.

Mr. Nigel Beard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the generous purposes of Government policies are often diminished by public administration and by long and complex forms, obscure language and protracted procedures? Will he champion a campaign in all Departments to base public administration on the minimum number of questions necessary, plain English and service with a smile?

The Prime Minister: That has probably been the ambition of most Prime Ministers for a long period. It is right that the measures that have been taken for schools, hospitals and the police will reduce bureaucracy. It is important that we make those changes and reforms, but it is also important that we make the big investment in our schools, hospitals and police that the country needs. As a result of the investment already made, we have the best primary school results this country has ever seen, we now have 17,000 more nurses in the health service than a few years ago, and the latest police figures show that, in the past 14 months, numbers have risen by 1,400, which is the largest rise in well over a decade.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Prime Minister pay particular attention to foot and mouth in Powys, where Brecon and Radnor has 11 cases and Montgomery has 16? We are on a knife edge. The carcases are supposed to be buried within 24 hours of the disease being identified, but we have only 50 troops available in Wales. Their headquarters is in my constituency. Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to get more of the Army involved in Wales?


Will he consider delaying the general election for one or two months so that he and his Ministers can concentrate on the issue?

The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I have nothing to add to what I said on Monday. In respect of the Army, we sometimes hear that more troops are required on the ground and I will consider the situation in Powys. We have a sufficient number of contractors available to carry out the work. The problem is organising that and finding the burial sites that are needed. In the past week or so, as a result of the work by the Environment Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, we have identified about 48 or 50 sites in different parts of the country, the most visible of which is in Cumbria, where a large site is being used for burial. We thought—I think rightly—that the priority was to achieve the policy of 24 hours from report of a case to slaughter. As I have said, disposal is happening more quickly as we open up burial sites. However, I shall consider the particular problem of Powys this afternoon.

Mr. Denis MacShane: As our nation's hearts go out to farming communities, can we spare a thought for the families of the 6,000 steelworkers who face great misery without receiving a peep of sympathy from the Conservatives or their stringpullers in the press? Will my right hon. Friend welcome the announcement by Corus yesterday that it will work with trade unions on a package to retrain as many of those steelworkers as possible? Surely the way forward in the 21st century is to have a social partnership, with Corus joining the car and aerospace industries in working with employees to ensure their future. Will he put his authority behind the help that the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have given? They are providing grants and advice on working with the European rules to ensure that the rescue package succeeds. The steel community, after 20 years of being butchered by the Conservatives, now has a Government on its side.

The Prime Minister: We will certainly examine carefully the proposals by the trade unions and management on specific help with training. We also stand ready to help in any other way that we can with those several thousand people who unfortunately face losing their jobs. Again, I pay tribute to the way in which the trade unions have put together their package. They have

acted in a highly responsible and commercially sensitive way. I hope that the company listens to them; we certainly will.

Sir Raymond Whitney: Last month, the International Monetary Fund warned that the Chancellor's spending plans risk damaging the economy. It said that the much-trumpeted golden rule is an inadequate guide to fiscal policy. Given that recent economic and financial developments have reinforced the criticism of the IMF, will the Prime Minister advise the Chancellor that his policies are heading towards boom and bust?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not think that I can. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the IMF. It said that the Chancellor should not relax his fiscal position and, of course, he did not, for the reasons that he gave in the Budget. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is against the extra investment that we are putting into schools, hospitals and crime. As ever, we have a somewhat confused message from the Conservatives about what their policies really are.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned boom and bust, and I am glad that he did. It is right to remind the House of what happened when he and his party were last in power. In the early 1990s, more than a million jobs were lost, interest rates were at 15 per cent., output plummeted and thousands of homes were repossessed. Today, there are a million extra jobs, lower mortgages, better living standards and a Government who have got rid of boom and bust.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: Last week, I met members of the Barnet senior citizens forum, who raised with me their concern about their perception of ageism in the NHS. I therefore welcome yesterday's announcement of the new NHS national service framework, which will ensure that services are provided on the basis of need, not age—[Interruption.] When does my right hon. Friend expect the new resources announced yesterday to make a real difference to pensioners in my constituency?

The Prime Minister: We certainly welcome the NHS statement, which forms part of the changes we are making. In response to the comments shouted by Opposition Members at my hon. Friend, let me remind them that we will be going into the election promising the largest ever investment in the health service, with 17,000 more nurses, a new hospital building programme and extra GPs on the way, while they will be going into the election arguing for cuts in that investment. I think that we will be waving bye bye to them.

Points of Order

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After four wasted years on the London underground, London commuters are preparing for the misery of yet another strike. At the same time, the Government's policy of co-operating with Transport for London and Mr. Kiley has totally collapsed. Where is the Deputy Prime Minister? Should he not be here to make a statement on the chaos of his policy, instead of running away from a proper debate on the subject?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had an intimation of a further statement from the Minister of Agriculture concerning the report in The Scotsman today, which suggests that vaccination is now an option for the Government as a result of a report from Dr. Keith Sumption? Does the Minister want to tell the House whether the report has been influential and, in particular, will he respond to the allegation in The Scotsman that the timing of the general election is impinging on the Government's policy to eradicate foot and mouth?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

BILL PRESENTED

ELECTRICITY ACT 1989 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Simon Thomas, supported by Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. leuan Wyn Jones, presented a Bill to amend the Electricity Act 1989 to transfer from the Secretary of State to the National Assembly for Wales certain functions relating to the granting of consent for the construction of generating stations in Wales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 76].

Bus Services (Provision of Information)

Mr. Bill Rammell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require operators of bus services to record, compile and publish certain information on the quality of their services; and for connected purposes.
Buses are the work force of our local transport system, with two thirds of public transport journeys being made by bus. Crudely put, if bus services do not work, public transport does not work. Bus services are certainly essential in giving people choice in how they travel throughout the country, but for far too long, and certainly in the 12 years until 1997, their development has been a story of abject failure.
It is well known that the previous Government deregulated bus services outside London and, as a result, bus usage fell by a staggering 24 per cent. As a consequence, private operators cut less profitable routes and the public found buses less reliable as routes and timetables were chopped and changed. That process of decline became self-perpetuating: as services were cut, fewer people used them, so there was less revenue available to reinvest in them.
In Harlow, an acute form of that problem has developed. The quality of our local service, which is predominantly provided by the Arriva bus company, has varied between the barely acceptable and the frankly disgraceful. In the past year alone, 400 of my constituents have contacted me about the failings of the service, of which I shall provide details. Too often, services run late—in some cases by up to 45 minutes—and on some routes that is a persistent and regularly occurring problem. Arriva has found it difficult to recruit drivers, so services have often been cut without adequate local consultation.
People who rely on the bus service to get to work, such as the postmen who have contacted me, are forced to take taxis or use their own car because they know that they cannot count on the bus to get them to work on time. Children who once used the bus service to get to school can no longer do so, so their parents use cars during the rush hour and thereby add to problems of congestion. Pensioners, many of whom regard the bus service as a lifeline, feel greatly let down as they stand in the cold and the rain waiting for a bus. To give some scale to the local problems, in the run up to Christmas the lost mileage rate peaked at 13.5 per cent. Bus services are now the second most important issue in my constituency postbag.
I do not want to give a wholly negative impression. Positive changes are beginning to improve the position. There has never before been the long-term commitment to increase investment that is embodied in the 10-year transport plan, whereby £59 billion will go to local transport schemes, targeted to achieve a 10 per cent. increase in bus usage. That is a massive and welcome shot in the arm. The establishment of the quality partnerships between local authorities and private bus operators envisaged under the Transport Act 2000 will certainly improve services. Especially helpful is the permission for local authorities to contract out whole routes to a single operator if that is judged to be in the public interest. The national target that no more than 0.5 per cent. of scheduled mileage should be lost for reasons that lie within operators' control represents a clear step forward,


as does the Government's insistence that they want improvements in reliability and punctuality to be achieved in conjunction with increased usage.
Although improvements are being made, we have to do more. I have been lobbying and pressing Arriva locally on those issues for more than 18 months. Sometimes, the response has not been all that I expected: for example, I was given a commitment that no further changes to the timetable would be made without full local consultation, but that commitment was unilaterally breached by Arriva. Latterly, however, I have been persuaded that Arriva, whose national management have become engaged in resolving local problems, is determined to improve services.
I understand the company's difficulty in recruiting drivers at a time of very low unemployment, but Arriva is now developing strategies to overcome that problem. The lost mileage performance indicator has improved significantly, from the pre-Christmas peak of 13.5 per cent. to low single figures now. Especially welcome is the company's senior management's agreement to meet every three months in my constituency representatives of the district council, the county council, pensioners and me to review progress.
That brings me to my main reason for introducing the Bill. At our first meeting some weeks ago, I was surprised and concerned by Arriva' s attitude to the publication of its performance information. We were given performance information, some of which I have quoted today, but when I made a request—a reasonable one, I think—for it to be made publicly available every three months, I was told that that was not possible because the information was commercially confidential. I believe that that is, quite simply, wrong—and that applies to all bus operators, not only Arriva, that are protected by commercial confidentiality in that way.
The issue has broader ramifications. When drawing up my Bill, I was told by colleagues that they could not get two operators in their constituencies to sit down and discuss local services with them because of issues of commercial confidentiality. If we were talking about companies that sell cars, I could understand the problem, but we are talking about a public service. Organisations providing public services widely accept that performance can be enhanced through benchmarking and publicising performance against agreed criteria. Such a process can shame poor performers into action and be used positively as a motivational tool to achieve organisational change and improvement, which is why we have legislation requiring schools, rail operators, the Civil Aviation Authority, local councils and many others to publish their performance indicators. There is no such requirement on bus companies, which can plead commercial confidentiality.

That strikes me as a glaring omission. It is not as though the information is not already being compiled. On local authority subsidised routes, operators are contractually obliged to provide electronic ticket machine data to the local authority to justify the subsidy. For all routes—not just those subsidised by the local authority—the traffic commissioner is charged with inspecting and ensuring that 95 per cent. of bus services arrive within a specified time frame in accordance with the timetable. If they do not, the traffic commissioner can levy penalties. That is currently undertaken randomly, but clearly it could be developed.
I know that there will be a host of objections to what I am proposing. They include complexity; the time taken to compile the information in an understandable form; and the need to rely on the honesty of drivers when compiling information, to name but a few. In principle, those are the same objections that every organisation uses initially to argue against performance indicators when it has a vested interest in not letting the public know how well it is performing.
Those objections should be rejected. With good will, it must be possible to devise an acceptable, simple and fair system for measuring the performance of bus operators. That change—allied to the extra investment now being made in our public transport system and increased regulation—is the only sure way to restore confidence in our bus services, which are important to local communities.
I strongly believe that change is long overdue; it is a change whose time has come. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Rammell, Ms Hazel Blears, Ms Karen Buck, Mr. Ivor Caplin, Mr. Jeff Ennis, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Alan Hurst, Mr. Bob Russell, Angela Smith, Mr. Ian Stewart, Mr. Brian White and Mr. Anthony D. Wright.

BUS SERVICES (PROVISION OF INFORMATION)

Mr. Bill Rammell accordingly presented a Bill to require operators of bus services to record, compile and publish certain information on the quality of their services; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 June, and to be printed [Bill 77].

ELECTION PUBLICATIONS BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,

That—

(1) at the sitting on Thursday 29th March, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords relating to the Election Publications Bill [Lords] shall have been received; and
(2) notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules in respect of the Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Orders of the Day — Private Security Industry Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill forms part of the Government's commitment to reducing crime and disorder. It introduces statutory regulation to the private security industry to drive out criminals and drive up standards. It will assist the building of important crime reduction partnerships between police, the private security industry and others. It is a regulatory Bill, but it makes straightforward and sensible arrangements for the private security industry and is consistent with our general aim of keeping regulation to the minimum necessary.
The private security industry is a thriving, diverse industry that has grown rapidly in recent years and is now part of daily life. We are all used to seeing private security personnel in shopping centres, department stores and office blocks; delivering cash to banks and building societies; and in many of our public service institutions. At present, there is no statutory regulation of the industry. I pay tribute to the industry for taking significant self-regulatory steps in recent years to raise its standards and image through trade associations and its training and inspectorate organisations.
The Government believe, however, that voluntary self-regulation is not enough. It cannot deal with the criminal or unscrupulous elements in the industry. There are no effective controls to prevent such people from leaving one area or firm and setting up again elsewhere, which can seriously hamper the work of the police in dealing with them.
Clients of the private security industry, by definition, give privileged access to those providing their security, and those providers are placed in particular positions of trust, with inside knowledge of their clients' weaknesses. That trust can be abused in ways that have damaging or even tragic consequences.
A recent survey revealed that some 350,000 people were wholly or mainly employed in the private security industry—a large number of people. The industry has a total annual turnover of more than £2 billion, but despite its size and important role in the security of our communities, no proper regulation is in place.

Jackie Ballard: The Minister mentioned the figure of 350,000. I expect that other hon. Members have different figures from other surveys, which suggests that there is some doubt about the number of people employed in the industry. Does the figure that he quoted include people employed, for example, by shops?

Mr. Clarke: The figure that I quoted from the survey includes people employed in-house, which I think is the hon. Lady's point. She is right that the numbers vary between surveys. There is a large number of part-time workers, and there are definitional issues as well. I have previously used the figure of 250,000, but the latest advice

that I have is that 350,000 is an appropriate figure. It is not germane to the substance of the Bill, but it indicates the importance of the sector to all our lives. As I said, despite the sector's size and role, no proper regulation is in place.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the public have severe reservations about the activities of those sectors of the industry that are prone to exploitation by rogue elements. That is why both the industry and the police have long sought statutory regulation. We believe that a statutory framework is the most effective way to drive out the undesirable elements and thus increase public confidence in the industry.
Regulation has been long awaited. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), whom I am delighted to see in his place, tabled a private Member's Bill on the subject is long ago as 1977. I pay tribute to him, as he has played a long and distinguished role in trying to ensure that the House gives proper attention to this important issue He has consistently argued for that, and in preparations for the Bill we had a number of discussions about the right way to proceed.
In 1995, the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended a statutory licensing system. The Government of the day decided that statutory regulation was not the answer and that the industry should regulate itself. At the time, the Labour party said that that response did not go far enough, and we indicated our intention to regulate the industry on our return to office. That is the position that we have reached, and is why the Bill is before the House.
After taking office, we undertook a consultation exercise with those most directly concerned: in particular, the industry, the police service, local authorities and the entertainment industry. As part of the exercise, we met many typical small to medium-sized security firms that saw regulation as a way of promoting confidence in the industry, as well as protecting the public. They were willing to be regulated even if that came at a cost, because they recognised that confidence in their services had to be their paramount concern.
Following the consultations, we published a White Paper in March 1999 outlining our proposals and inviting further comments. The White Paper has been deposited in the Library as a background paper to the Bill. The key aspects of our proposals were, first, that it was essential to vet people working in the industry to exclude criminal elements; secondly, that companies providing a recognised standard of service should be recognised through a voluntary inspection scheme; and, thirdly, that regulation would help to raise standards in the industry, building on progress made through self-regulation. We received about 180 responses to the White Paper from a wide range of bodies, which were generally supportive of the proposals and strongly in favour of regulation.
The Bill essentially reflects the proposals in the White Paper. It was carefully scrutinised in the other place, and a number of details have been improved in the light of the helpful arguments that were advanced, not least by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. As the House will know, I always hope to take account of the well-argued and constructive proposals that are made by all hon. Members during the passage of a Bill, in order to achieve as much consensus as possible.

Mr. John Bercow: What assessment has the Minister made of the incidence of crime in the


private security industries of European Union member states that have systems of statutory regulation? What assessment has he made of the costs of those systems?

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South has done the most distinguished work on that subject, on which he has published one of his numerous monographs. I have read the monograph, which deals with the various issues to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We have considered regulatory systems, although the word "assessment" is perhaps too strong. We have not conducted a rigorous assessment of the security systems of every European country. In many countries, practices are entirely different, so it is difficult to achieve a base for international comparison, but we have considered the arrangements in other countries and sought to achieve a progressive element for ourselves. As my right hon. Friend points out in his private arguments and in that learned monograph—

Mr. Bercow: And well thumbed.

Mr. Clarke: Yes, it is well thumbed, and it shows that, in the experience of other countries, a powerful form of regulation can work in driving down a crime levels. The effectiveness of such regulation depends on the country and the culture to which it is applied, but such experience has been gained.

Mr. Bruce George: I think that the success of such measures largely depends on how good the regulatory system is, how much the security industry is respected and the close relationship between private security and the police. If they trust each other, and the public trust those involved in private security, crime prevention is much more successful than when the police and the public are alienated from the industry. We have experienced that recipe for catastrophe for the past 20 or 30 years.

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, he speaks with knowledge that is gained from great experience in the field. The partnership approach that he advocates is precisely that which is set out in the Bill. That is why we welcome the fact that the industry, trade unions and police are all in favour of establishing a regulatory regime that can achieve the public confidence that he describes.
The main proposal to achieve that aim is our over-arching provision to create a non-departmental public body called the Security Industry Authority, whose aim will be to regulate sectors of the industry in respect of which there is genuine public concern about the activities of criminals and cowboys. We do not propose to regulate for the sake of doing so when public concern does not justify action or when the regulatory burden might be disproportionate.
That is why the SIA will be responsible for licensing individuals who are offering services under contract in designated sectors of the industry. It will also be responsible for regulating those involved in door supervision—bouncers—and in wheelclamping services, including people who offer services under contract to others and those who are employed in-house. In addition, it will inspect companies in response to voluntary applications and issue approved contractor status to those

meeting an acceptable standard. Finally, it will be responsible for setting and raising professional standards within the industry.
The Bill extends to England and Wales and has been welcomed by the industry and the police service. It does not apply to Scotland, which is considering whether to make proposals to regulate the private security industry.
The functions of the new authority are set out in clause 1. Essentially, it will license individuals and approve companies with the help of an inspections regime; keep the private security industry and the legislative framework within which it operates under general review—I shall return to that point, as a general evolution is needed over time—and set, approve and ratchet up standards. A key feature of the effectiveness of the SIA will be the calibre and independence of its members and senior officials. It will need to establish good working relations with the industry in order to keep itself properly informed of the realities of the sector that it is regulating, for the reasons set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South. There will be a place in its membership for the industry.
The Government's overriding intention, which I want to emphasise, is to ensure that the authority and its officials are properly independent of the industry and are seen to be so. They must carry the confidence of everyone with a stake in the industry—the police, insurers, the public and others. If the Bill becomes law, I assure hon. Members of our determination to secure that independence and integrity, which will be critical to the success of the regime.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am sorry for missing the Minister's earlier remarks. Will he ensure that those who serve on the authority not only understand the industry but are independent? That is important.

Mr. Clarke: I apologise if I was not clear about that. At the beginning of my speech, I said that the Security Industry Authority will need to establish good working relations with the industry to keep properly informed of the realities of the sector that it will regulate. It is obviously important for some members of the authority to have direct personal experience of the industry. It is vital to reach a position whereby the independent agency carries such authority that its integrity is generally accepted.

Sir Norman Fowler: I accept the Minister's comments about the authority, but the Bill will not cover people who install alarms. Why has that change from the proposals in the White Paper been made?

Mr. Clarke: In summary, we made the change because the better regulation taskforce, which considers burdens on industry, examined the extent to which legislation was needed to tackle crime in the alarm installation industry. We concluded that the need to tackle criminality was not clear enough to justify the inclusion of such a provision in the Bill. I shall deal with the point in more detail later, but I emphasise that one of the key functions of the new authority is to keep the legislative framework under general review. Similar issues to that mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman might arise in future.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister is dealing with specific matters and industries that the Bill


may cover. Have he or his officials considered whether paragraph 5 of schedule 2 covers those who are involved in computer programming, and the security aspects of such involvement? If he believes that the provision covers people in that important industry, will he consult more widely with the industry during the Bill's passage?

Mr. Clarke: My officials and I have considered that carefully. I shall address the point in detail later; I believe that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks. However, I was seduced by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) into going into a specific subject earlier than I intended.
The employment status of the relevant individuals and the type of security services that they provide determine who is affected by the Bill. Clause 3 defines the employment status of those who will be caught by the regulatory framework. All individuals who provide security services directly, their supervisors and managers and the directors or partners of their company or firm will be required to have a licence. That also applies to those who supply services on an agency basis.
Schedule 2 defines the sectors of the industry that are regulated. There are two main groups: first, those providing manned guarding services and, secondly, those engaged in immobilising vehicles—wheelclampers.
Manned guarding is a diverse activity, but it has the common feature of guarding premises, property or people. The Bill proposes that individuals in the manned guarding sector should be licensed if they provide services under contract to a client. We do not generally propose to require them to have licences if they are employed in-house by companies. Those companies will already have satisfied themselves about their employees, and the Government do not intend to add an additional layer of checking where it is not necessary.
The Government are fully aware of arguments in the industry and elsewhere that in-house staff should also be licensed. That relates to a point that the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) made earlier. We appreciate the weight of opinion behind those arguments. We were initially attracted to that idea, but, for the reasons that I gave the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, we decided against it because we believed that it would be an additional bureaucratic burden on business.
The Government are not closed to the arguments that have been made in favour of regulating in-house staff. We will bear them carefully in mind. The authority has a general duty to keep the operation of the industry and its parent legislation under review, and we will also have a formal review of all the arrangements after the authority has operated for three years. The Bill is flexible, and the Government can add or delete sectors of the industry by regulations. We will pay close attention to any recommendation from the authority that in-house manned guards should be brought into regulation.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is right to be cautious about extending the burden of regulation, especially as it could affect large numbers of small businesses. He will be aware that the British Security Industry Association covers 70 per cent. of the sector,

including a number of large companies. Will he tell the House what proportion of the companies in the sector are small—that is, employing fewer than 50 people?

Mr. Clarke: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figure that he requests. The thrust of his point is correct. The BSIA, with which we have worked closely, has been a strong advocate of the Bill. We are glad to have worked closely with it. However, it also has a commercial interest in strengthening the position of its members vis-a-vis some of the smaller operators in the field. That is why we have been concerned to see what the impact would be on those smaller of operators, and why, on the balance of judgment, we finally took the decisions that we have taken about those specific sectors, and about in-house staff.
The provisions for the review and consideration of the process and its application will allow us to see whether we have been too bureaucratically heavy-handed in relation to some parts of the industry, or whether some parts of the industry—such as in-house staff—that are not within the remit of the Bill will need to be regulated. That is the judgment that we have made about the right way to proceed, but I am sorry that I do not have the figure that the hon. Gentleman requested.
Door supervisors, or bouncers, form an important sub-set of the manned guarding sector regulated by the Bill. There are professional, reputable companies and operatives providing door supervisor services; but the fact that door supervisors operate most often at pubs and clubs, particularly at venues where young people are likely to gather, has meant that on too many occasions, disreputable and even criminal elements have infiltrated the sector.
We know that some door supervisors have turned a blind eye to drug dealing on the premises that they are meant to be protecting. Worse still, we know of door supervisors who have used their position to deal in drugs themselves. We are also aware of bouncers committing physical assaults on members of the public. The Bill therefore requires all door supervisors to be licensed, whether they provide their services under contract to a client or are employed in-house by a pub or club. I shall come in a moment to the licensing regime and its relationship to the local authorities.
I mentioned partnerships earlier. This will be an important area in which we can establish good partnerships between the police and local door supervisors in pubs and clubs. For example, in Manchester, 130,000 young people are in the city centre at 2 o'clock on Friday and Saturday mornings. That is an enormous number of people. Even in my own city of Norwich, between 10,000 and 13,000 young people are in the city centre on Friday and Saturday nights.

Mr. Bercow: Not because of the MP?

Mr. Clarke: The MP was out in the centre of Norwich with the police at that time of the morning a couple of weeks ago, and I think that the numbers were about 50 per cent. higher than they would otherwise have been because the word had got around that I was going to be there.
There are serious points relating to this. For example, the city safe scheme in Manchester, which I commend, involves a radio system between all the bouncers and the


police to ensure that issues can be dealt with rapidly. That requires mutual confidence. In Norwich, there have recently been two tragic deaths of young people, and the question of how bouncers have operated has been important. We have a compact between the police, the local authority, the clubs and the bouncers to improve professional standards. That will be an important aspect of what we do.
Wheelclampers form a second important sector regulated by the Bill. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), whom I am delighted to see in her place today. She has been a strong, consistent campaigner for proper regulation of the industry, and, since being elected to the House, has taken an active, positive approach to the issue, which I want to place on record.
We are addressing the issue of wheelclamping on private land—that is, land that is not a road to which the general public has access. Roads are separately regulated under the Road Traffic Acts. In our view, landowners must be able to take action against those who park on private land without permission, and wheelclamping—or at least the threat of it—may be an effective way to deal with irresponsible parking. However, it is crucial that such wheelclamping is carried out in a reasonable manner. To some extent, the law has already enshrined those principles. For example, in 1995, the Court of Appeal adjudged, in the case of Arthur and Arthur v. Anker, that clampers had acted legally as adequate warning signs had been displayed, the release fee was reasonable and there was a reasonable method of payment.
The judgment provided useful guidelines, but only in broad terms, to courts faced with similar cases. The court did not define a general standard for the size of signs or what a "reasonable" release fee might be. That leaves the motorist who is aggrieved at having his or her car clamped on private land with only limited practical means of redress. Unless the behaviour of the clamper is outrageous, the motorist may well be uncertain of his or her rights and may also be dissuaded from going to court by the potential cost of legal fees.
We believe that that gap in the law needs to be filled, which is why the Bill ensures that all wheelclamping on private land carried out as a business or as part of one's employment, or for a release fee, will be regulated by a licensing system. Each individual who provides wheelclamping services to others will therefore need a licence, as will his or her director or manager.
We also considered whether the licensing regime needed to cover the wheelclamping by businesses of cars on their own land using their own employees, or in-house wheelclamping. We concluded that it did. Immobilising a car gives the damper such power over the car owner, with all the inherent danger of that power being abused, that we would leave the public open to the risk of further abuses were we not to legislate.
However, in the example of in-house wheelclamping, the Bill allows the authority to avoid undue regulation by being able to require a licence only of the employer, if it is satisfied that the employer will vet employees to a suitable standard and also ensure their compliance with all the requirements and conditions of the licence.
Finally, the Bill requires a private individual or anyone acting on behalf of that individual to be licensed if he or she wishes to engage in do-it-yourself wheelclamping that

involves charging a release fee. It also regulates three other sectors: private investigators, security consultants and keyholders. Those groups are much smaller in number than manned guards and wheelclampers and their activities give significantly less cause for public concern. None the less, such practitioners are in a special relationship of trust with regard to the security of their clients, and our White Paper proposals to take them into a statutory regulatory framework were welcomed.
The Government believe that the public are justified in expecting those who offer such services under contract to be subject to regulation. However, that does not affect operatives in those sectors who are employed in-house by companies. Again, we believe that employers' own screening processes are sufficient.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) asked about IT security consultants. I am happy to clarify a point relating to security consultants that has caused concern in some circles. Paragraph 5 of schedule 2, to which he referred, extends the provisions to security consultants whose activities are broadly defined in terms of giving advice about security precautions against any risk to property or the person.
In keeping with the rest of Bill, that is a broad definition, accompanied by some clarificatory exemptions. Concern has been expressed about the position of the information security industry in relation to those definitions. Just as with tangible assets, there are real threats to the security of information and security advice, and precautions are needed to protect it.
At present, there is no regulation of the information security industry. However, the Government are committed to regulating only where necessary. The Department of Trade and Industry will therefore consult the information security industry on the extent and effectiveness of existing precautions—protected measures—and whether further action is required. In the light of that, I am happy to make it clear that we do not currently intend to bring the information security industry within the scope of the new licensing regime established by the Bill.
The Security Industry Authority, when established, will undertake full and detailed consultations about the discharge of the remits placed on it by the Bill. Nobody will be regulated by the Bill without their full knowledge and understanding. All relevant types of security consultant will be invited to participate in the authority's consultations at the appropriate time. I am happy to make those points clear and I hope that I have dealt with the confusion that arose.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks, which are helpful to those involved in the information security sector of the IT industry, but is not he conscious of the fact that the broad wording of paragraph 5 of schedule 2 may accidentally catch some of those people, even if he does not intend that it should? Will he undertake further to consider that wording and whether it might be improved?

Mr. Clarke: I am certainly prepared to look at the wording, but this is a historic Bill for which, as I have said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South has pressed for many years, and I am keen for its wording to take account of significant changes in the way in which security is offered. Over the past 20 years, for instance,


there have been considerable changes in the style of security, the approach to security and the technology that is used. That is why we have adopted a flexible stance in the Bill, requiring the Security Industry Authority to review the position and committing ourselves to consulting the industries concerned. I acknowledge that the wording of the Bill should relate to what we know now, in 2001, but in a broadly drafted context. That is our rationale, and that is why I have been able to give the commitments that I have given.
All individual employees, supervisors, managers or directors in the sectors that I have described will be required to have licences. Let me return to the point made by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. We are aware of the arguments in favour of taking other sectors into this regulatory framework, and particularly aware of the arguments relating to installers of alarm and security equipment. As with in-house manned guards, we were initially attracted to the idea of including them in regulation, but we were persuaded against that by the argument about the regulatory burden and, to a significant extent, by the lack of any substantial evidence of criminality. In the case of some sectors mentioned in the Bill, we have such evidence.
We are not closed to arguments, but the Bill already gives the SIA a major task, and we do not want further to front-load its waiting list of people to license. We prefer to get the authority up and running with the duties given to it by the Bill in its present form, and then to listen to the voice of experience as it emerges. We will, of course, pay close attention to any recommendations from the authority.
It will be an offence for anyone to engage in licensable conduct, as defined in the Bill, without a proper licence. It will also be an offence to employ an unlicensed person providing security services. As a result of a Government amendment in another place, the Bill also makes it an offence for an occupier of premises to permit unlicensed clamping of vehicles on those premises where such activities require a licence.
A licence will be required for each designated security service provided. For example, if someone legitimately works as both a manned guard and a wheelclamper, he or she will need to be licensed for both activities. Exemptions from the need for a licence will be allowed when an individual is already subject to a type of vetting that affords protection for the public that is at least equivalent to that achieved by the criteria imposed by the authority.
The authority will determine the criteria on which it will issue licences. The criteria will be published so that applicants and the public will know what the requirements are. There will be two types of criterion. First, the authority will check an individual's criminal record with the newly established Criminal Records Bureau. In the case of applicants in all but one of the regulated sectors, the authority will obtain a criminal record certificate showing both spent and unspent convictions. Because of particular concerns, door supervisors alone will be the subject of an enhanced criminal record certificate, showing spent and unspent convictions together with convictions for minor offences, and local police intelligence.
The Government believe that those exemptions from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 are fully justified if private security operatives are to be licensed properly. That belief was shared by those who commented during our consultation period.
It will be for the authority to determine what weight to give any criminal convictions revealed by the checks. It is unreasonable to say that any criminal conviction whatever should automatically prevent the granting of a licence—the authority will consider each application on its merits—but it is likely that certain serious offences relating to violence or drugs will bar an applicant from gaining a licence.
The second type of criterion that the authority will take into account relates to skills and training. The authority will have an important role in setting and raising standards in the industry generally. I should say at this point that both the British Security Industry Association and the main trade union in the sector, the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, have been active in promoting the case for proper training and development of staff, and the Government associate themselves strongly with those efforts.
The Government will wish the authority to consider carefully how to ratchet up minimum quality thresholds. Any proposals will need to be discussed carefully with the industry.
A number of current training and quality standards are relevant to the private security industry. Some of them are accepted as pretty good, but some are not so good. The SIA will need carefully to examine the range of quality of those standards before deciding on the standards that it wants to see in place. Although the authority will not want to reinvent the wheel, it may also not want to buy one off the shelf.
As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, in considering the type of quality standards that it wants to use, the authority will of course have to pay attention to standards in other European countries. I am clear that the authority should be thinking in terms of standards that are challenging for the industry. However, as with all training, it will also have to bear in mind what is practicable and achievable.
The authority will be able to attach conditions to a licence, and it will be an offence to contravene them. The authority will also be able to refuse, modify, suspend or revoke a licence, and the criteria for doing so will be published. There will also be a standardised system of licence applications and procedures, and a standard licence format to help with public recognition and enable the licence holder to work anywhere in the country.

Mr. Bercow: I am, as always, listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He will be aware that the Government are furnishing themselves with the power to make regulations on exemptions from the licensing requirement and, for example, on arrangements for the grant of approvals. Detailed policy will be contained in those regulations. He will also know, from previous skirmishes, my interest in that subject. Can he assure me that those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so that the House has a proper opportunity to debate them? If the answer is no and he proposes to opt instead for the negative procedure, will he at least


undertake, in the name of getting it right, to provide a draft of those regulations before the Bill is further considered?

Mr. Clarke: We have discussed those two points at great and entertaining length. The fact is that Oppositions always ask for affirmative orders, whereas Governments are always inclined not to agree them. Occasionally, however, we have agreed them. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath may have been in a Committee that considered other legislation which has been passed when I accepted from Conservative Members an amendment for the affirmative procedure. Therefore, although our mind is not closed to proposals, we shall make practical decisions in each case.
I am not sure that I can give the assurance that the hon. Member for Buckingham seeks that we shall be able to publish detailed draft regulations during the Bill's passage. I can, however, assure him that we shall do that as soon as we are able to do so.
I also have an answer to the question on small companies that the hon. Member for Buckingham asked earlier. It is apparently the case that of 2,000 manned guarding companies in the United Kingdom, 1,600—four fifths, or 80 per cent.—had 50 or fewer employees.
The authority will be able to charge a fee for licence applications. The fee should be the minimum necessary to allow the authority to be self-financing. I make it absolutely clear that it is not our intention to erect artificial financial barriers to employment in the industry. The exact fee will be determined by several factors, but we expect it to be about £35 to £40 for a licence that usually will last for three years. That is not a commitment to a specific figure, but an indication of the scale of charges that we envisage. We do not believe that that sum is extortionate. A fee of £40 for a three-year licence is equivalent to 25p a week. We do not believe that that should be a barrier to employment in the industry.
We would hope that employers will want to reimburse employees for the cost of a licence. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to shift the onus for payment from the individual to the employer, as the Bill correctly places responsibility for licensing at the level of the individual security operative. We believe that the fee must follow that responsibility. However the indications that I have had are that, in many industries, employers will reimburse employees for the cost. We hope that that will be general practice.
There will be an avenue of appeal to the magistrates courts against a decision by the authority to refuse, modify or revoke a licence or a decision to impose conditions on a licence. That avenue of appeal reflects concerns expressed in another place and is a welcome improvement.
Earlier, I mentioned delegation to local authorities. Although the Bill vests licensing powers centrally with the security industry authority, the Government are of course aware that many local author ties operate schemes to register door supervisors and wish to continue to have a role in licensing them.
It is important that setting the licence criteria will remain the responsibility of the SIA, as we do not want to move away from a national standard in terms of licensing criteria. The Bill therefore makes no provision for local authorities to apply criteria other than those set out by the

authority. However, it envisages the possibility of local authorities undertaking the processes for the grant of licences to door supervisors—that is to say, receiving the applications, conducting the necessary checks, and deciding the eligibility for licences. As with decisions of the SIA, there are avenues of appeal to the magistrates courts against a local authority decision.
Given local authorities' familiarity with the local scene, allowing them to conduct the necessary checks will clearly have some potential advantages. However, I should emphasise that delegation will take place only with the consent of the local authorities. There is no intention of simply foisting these duties on them against their will. We shall hold detailed discussions with the local authorities about the practicalities of delegation well in advance.

Mr. Hawkins: The Minister will know from other debates of the Opposition's concern about the Government's propensity to place extra burdens on local authorities without providing the necessary funding. Will he undertake to ensure that the Government will provide the appropriate funding to allow local authorities to carry out this additional work?

Mr. Clarke: I said that delegation would take place only with the consent of local authorities, and one consideration for the Government and the authorities would be the financial arrangements involved. I know that the previous Conservative Government at no time placed burdens on local authorities without paying for them, and I am therefore delighted with the integrity of the position adopted by the hon. Gentleman.
The final element of the licensing system will be a public register listing every licensed person and the terms on which they have been licensed. The public and the police will thus be able to establish clearly whether an individual is properly licensed to engage in regulated security activities.
The second main strand of the SIA's functions is the approved contractors scheme. The Bill establishes a system whereby providers of security services who meet certain standards can obtain recognition from the SIA. The Government are aware that some bodies in the industry and elsewhere favour making this a compulsory scheme. However, we have decided against that, at least for the present. We do not believe that a full and comprehensive case for imposing this additional burden across the board on the industry has yet been made. We believe that the majority of reputable companies will want to seek approval under the voluntary system.
We are aware of arguments that the Government should set a lead by requiring that public contracts for security services will not be awarded to companies failing to meet the standards set by the SIA. I cannot give that absolute guarantee, but I can certainly say that we shall draw the virtues of the approved contractors register to the attention of the procurers of public service security contracts, and that we will make it clear to security companies that we are doing so. We believe that that will further increase the attractiveness of the scheme in the eyes of companies.
The Bill contains provisions to convert the voluntary scheme into a compulsory one, if the authority and the Government of the day are convinced that that is the right thing to do. Once again, we will listen very carefully to what the SIA tells us about the operation of the voluntary scheme.


Providers of security services will be able to apply to the authority for approval against a set of published criteria. If the standards are met, the company will be able to advertise itself as approved.
The supporting regime is similar to that for the licensing of individuals. The authority will draw up and publish its criteria; it can withhold or delay approval until the criteria are met; it may attach conditions to the grant of an approval; and it may charge a fee for processing the application.
There will also be a right of appeal to the magistrates courts against any decision of the authority in this area, and there will be a public register of approved companies. It will be an offence falsely to claim approval under the scheme.
It is important that the authority can actively police the licensing regimes that it establishes. The authority will therefore have powers of entry and inspection, but the powers contain a number of safeguards. For example, they are restricted to premises other than those solely used as domestic dwellings, and the purpose of the entry and inspection must be stated. These safeguards balance the rights of the individual with the need for the authority to have an effective enforcement mechanism.
These additional safeguards were introduced and welcomed in another place in the light of concerns expressed in debate about the civil liberties implications of the powers.

Sir Norman Fowler: Before the Minister finishes, will he say what he thinks the chances are of the admirable measures in the Bill reaching the statute book by the time the general election is called?

Mr. Clarke: Very high. We shall have to see what Conservative Front-Bench Members and Liberal Democrat Members have to say about the matter, but my impression so far—subject to correction—is that there is a broad consensus, as there certainly was in the other place, as to the approach to be taken. There may be important points of detail to be debated—I do not want to trivialise that fact; but I believe that there is a general desire that we should respond to the wishes of the police and the security industry by getting legislation on to the statute book. I wait with interest to hear what will be said during this debate. I am confident that the Bill will receive Royal Assent by the time a general election is called—whenever that may be during the next year and a month.
As I was saying before I was so politely interrupted, the Government believe that the benefits accruing from the Bill are several. The SIA will, for the first time, introduce a licensing regime that is universal, consistent and transparent. By licensing all door supervisors, the authority will drive down the incidence of violence and drug offences in pubs and clubs. By licensing all wheelclampers, the authority will deter the cowboys who prey on innocent motorists.
The authority will also set about ratcheting up standards across the regulated sectors. It will play a central role in the future relationship between the private security industry, the police and the Government and the public whom we all serve; it will strengthen the partnerships that are so important.
It is important for the authority to work closely with the industry that it will regulate. However, it is also crucial that the authority is wholly independent of that industry. That will enable the public to have increased confidence in the industry, which, in turn, will, we hope and believe, be likely to lead to increased market opportunities for it.
The Bill contains a comprehensive set of proposals and I hope that the House will agree that it deserves a Second Reading. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Unscrupulous and criminal activity by those who have been employed in the security industry has been of concern to Members on both sides of the House and in another place.
In his opening remarks, the Minister paid tribute to the long-standing interest of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). Similarly, I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who has also been interested in the matter for a long time. Sadly, as the Minister and hon. Members know, because foot and mouth is a serious problem in my right hon. Friend's constituency, he is unable to be with us. Had that not been the case, I have no doubt that he would have wanted to participate in the debate. As he was the Minister of State at the Home Office when the Select Committee on Home Affairs investigated the matter in 1994, I am sure that the present Minister will agree that my right hon. Friend's work was extremely useful in preparing the background for the measure.
I pay tribute, too, to the former Member for Burton, Sir Ivan Lawrence, who was the Chairman of the Select Committee in 1994. He made a significant contribution to the Committee's report on the industry—as the Minister will confirm.
The Opposition's Approach to the Bill is that it should not place unnecessary, overly complex, bureaucratic or burdensome regulations on the legitimate sector of the industry. I am sure that the House does not want the Bill to go further than is necessary or desirable. We must be especially careful not to hit the smallest people hardest. We do not want the Bill to impose a huge bureaucratic burden on small businesses; as we know, it is often easier—relatively—for big business to comply with Government regulations.
A large company can afford to employ people in compliance and administrative departments to ensure that regulations are satisfied. However, for people legitimately trying to run a small company, who are working all the hours God sends to build up their business, extra bureaucratic regulation is a huge problem. Thus, in Committee, we shall want to spend a great deal of time considering how the legislation would operate—especially its effects on small companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who raised the matter in an earlier intervention, will be as keen as me to probe the Government carefully on that.
The Minister described the proposed new security industry authority and how the Government envisage that it will operate. Conservative Members never feel comfortable with the creation of new quangos.
When the Bill was in another place, it received not only quite a lot of attention from the Lords but a surprising amount of scrutiny from the national press. I was


particularly interested to read a description by one of our most distinguished parliamentary reporters of the debate in another place, in which he said that some called the new security industry authority "Ofbounce". He asked where, oh where was the libertarian voice that would scrutinise whether the authority was really necessary. I have a feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and I are in our current positions precisely to provide that libertarian voice and to ensure that there will be proper scrutiny. We do, however, recognise that there have been huge abuses throughout the country by so-called cowboy clampers.
I want to pay personal tribute to Mr. Alan Franklin, editor of The Surrey-Hants Star, which covers not only my constituency but the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who intervened earlier, and my right hon. Friends the Members for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). Over a period of not months but years, Mr. Franklin has highlighted many of the problems that my constituents and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends have had with particular clamping companies, especially a company that has been used by South West Trains.
Some clamping companies, even those employed by large public limited companies, have frequently indulged in a thoroughly inappropriate approach to law-abiding members of the public. It is particularly worrying, as the Minister will acknowledge, when single ladies return late at night from their work in central London to a poorly lit station car park, where their car may be a great distance from a well-lit area, only to find that it has been clamped—perhaps because the signs about parking charges were obscured, as they have been in some of the cases that Mr. Franklin has highlighted—and then find it almost impossible to get someone from the clamping company to come out and release the car. Understandably, they then feel frightened and vulnerable.
In those circumstances, it is not surprising that there is huge concern. The editors of local and regional papers, who have taken up this cause and tried to embarrass not only the clamping company but the public limited company that employed it into ensuring proper standards, are doing a very worthwhile job.
Some of the cases that have been highlighted nationally have caused huge worry. In a case that was decided by the Court of Appeal in June 2000, a 61-year-old lady was clamped when driving home from hospital following a chemotherapy session—she had had to park her car in order to be sick. It was an appalling case. The clamping company had been employed by the local authority. I am glad to say that the lady concerned was supported by the Automobile Association, and that when it was explained to the Court of Appeal that the sign warning that illegal parkers would be clamped had been obscured in this instance by another vehicle parked in front of it, it ruled that the lady concerned could not reasonably have been expected to see the sign and ordered repayment of the fine imposed on her.
There were, however, even more significant worries when, in February 2000, the Data Protection Registrar began making inquiries, following suggestions that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency had given motorists' names and addresses to conmen who were posing as

prosecuting or police authorities. Several drivers received what appeared to be official police penalty notices, but they were fakes, posted by wheelclamping companies.
In that instance, it was reported in the national press that wheelclamping companies were persuading landowners to let them enforce parking restrictions on private land in return for a cut of the fines improperly collected. Instead of clamping cars, which would deter other drivers from parking, unscrupulous companies were photographing vehicles' registration plates and asking the DVLA to provide the registered keepers' details. Again, that is a matter of huge concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
As a result of the wide reporting of such scandalous cases, we all recognise that the House probably needs to act. We shall want assurances from the Government that the provisions that will criminalise those who employ unlicensed operatives will be well publicised. For example, perfectly respectable businesses and individuals may wish to employ wheelclampers to stop the persistent, unauthorised use of their parking spaces.
In another place, my noble Friend Lord Cope cited the example of a dentist who had to employ wheelclampers to deter those who improperly used his surgery car park when visiting nearby shops. He asked whether the dentist would need to be licensed by the new authority. We certainly understand that, under the Bill, the dentist would find himself liable to criminal penalties if he were to employ an unlicensed wheelclamper. However, what would happen if he applied the clamp to an illegally parked car, or instructed one of his employees to do so? We should be interested to hear, in the Minister's winding-up speech, whether in those further circumstances the dentist or a similar professional would be caught by the offence proposed in clause 6.
Despite the limited defence to such a charge provided in clause 6(2), it would be helpful if the Minister could say how the Government intend to publicise the Bill's provisions to law-abiding people, not only those who will need to register with the new authority, but those who will use their services and the individuals who may, even on a limited and irregular basis, carry out such clamping. We want to know how the provisions will apply to people who voluntarily carry out the activities that will be regulated under the Bill. Will they be obliged to be licensed by the new authority?
Under schedule 1, the Secretary of State will have the unfettered power to appoint the new authority's members and chairman. He can appoint as many members as he likes—the Bill contains no lower or upper limit; nor does it state who can be appointed. When challenged in another place, the Minister's noble Friend Lord Bassam let slip that the Home Office expected that the Association of Chief Police Officers would be invited to nominate a representative; but is that all? Will representatives of the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation also be appointed? Will a senior judge or senior magistrate be appointed?
The Opposition think that that provision could be made much more specific. A more specific provision than that exists for, for example, the local probation boards established under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. I am sure that the debates in Committee will provide an opportunity to explore that important matter in more detail. The Secretary of State should not have an


unfettered power to appoint as many or as few people as he likes to the new authority, as well as appointing its chairman, and the Bill should state where those people can come from.
Will the Minister comment on the decision to make the register of licensed persons open to public inspection? Given that the register will hold not only the names of licensed persons but their addresses, what safeguards does the Bill contain to prevent someone from obtaining the home address of a licensed doorman or wheelclamper against whom he or she may bear a grudge? If such a licensed person were self-employed and worked from his or her home address, even allowing that person to specify a business address would not suffice because, in those circumstances, the business and home address would be one and the same.
Even if only work addresses were open to public view, there could be security implications. We are all aware of cases in which, sadly, private revenge attacks involve the arson of business premises—for example, fuel is poured through the letterbox and set on fire. Therefore, we shall wish to explore the need for further safeguards in that context.
The Minister will be aware that concerns were raised about the register of political donations that was set up by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Section 69(4) of the Act specifically provides that home addresses shall not be made available to the public. Conservative Members think that those concerns apply equally powerfully to operatives engaged in what may be sensitive security work.
We are aware of a number of complaints from police officers and others in sensitive positions about the potential for criminals to obtain home addresses from the electoral register. On a recent visit with the Solicitor-General, I was made aware that even senior people in the Crown Prosecution Service have been put at risk by the activities of serious and organised crime. People in the service felt that they and their families were being intimidated and threatened. That is a huge concern to those of us who are interested in the proper implementation of law and order and the administration of justice. The Government failed to act when such concerns were raised during the passage of the Representation of the People Act 2000. In enacting this Bill, it is important that we do not create similar problems, so we shall want to deal with that issue in detail in Committee.
Some people have expressed the concern that the Bill is really an attempt to provide a statutory framework for the kind of private policing arrangements that the Government envisage in their so-called 10-year crime plan, so that they can attempt to minimise any fuss that that might create. I remind the Minister of the Home Secretary's comments to the Police Federation conference back in May 1995, when the right hon. Gentleman was in opposition. He said:
There must be restriction in any event on what the private security industry is allowed to do. It must not be allowed to replace our fine and long-established tradition of public service policing by constables, accountable to the community.

Mr. Clarke: The words of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stand today as they did when we were in

opposition. I have made it clear in several speeches, including one to the British Security Industry Association, that the office of constable sets a constable apart from the rest of British society. It is an important constitutional role. Nothing that we or any Government do should weaken or diminish the significance of that role. My right hon. Friend and I stick with the words that the hon. Gentleman quoted.

Mr. Hawkins: That is helpful, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Since the Government came to power, many speeches have been made that suggest that the Home Secretary And the Home Office in general are moving towards a blurring of the distinction between police officers and private forces.

Mr. Clarke: I do not want to develop this argument at length, but that is simply not the case. We are not seeking to blur the distinction it is very important. We are in favour of developing partnerships between the police and the private security industry, and the Bill will assist in that.

Mr. Hawkins: I, too, do not want to prolong the debate on this issue unnecessarily, because we shall return to it. However, when Ian Blair, the former chief constable of Surrey, expressed his views about working closely with private uniformed forces, those views were warmly endorsed by the Home Secretary. The Minister knows that the police were greatly concerned about the way in which the distinction was being blurred. Perhaps the Home Secretary has learned better since then. However, we hear the Minister's comments and shall return to them.
One reason we are worried about the Government changing their mind is because of the Bill's timing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) highlighted the concern that the Government might not be seriously planning to enact the Bill before the general election. When the Home Secretary was in opposition, he attached huge importance and urgency to the measure, but he has introduced it late in this Parliament. In September 1996, as the then Opposition's spokesman on home affairs, he told the Police Superintendents Association conference
I regard statutory regulation of the industry as a priority.
Indeed, the Official Report is littered with comments by the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who repeatedly told the House throughout 1997 and 1998 that a Bill such as this would be introduced "as soon as possible." Given what the Labour party said before and after it came into government about the urgency of the measure, it is surprising that the Bill has been introduced at such a late stage.

Mr. Clarke: Honestly, after 18 years of Conservative government, during which time no action was taken on the matter, it is a bit steep to be chided for not acting quickly enough.

Mr. Hawkins: The Minister is remarkably sensitive. I have given him many examples of the Home Secretary referring to the matter as urgent. I was in the House several times when the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that the Government would act as soon as possible. Yet only at the last moment—if the rumours are to be believed—is legislation being introduced.
The distinguished parliamentary commentator Mr. Quentin Letts covered the proceedings in another place. The Minister rightly paid tribute to my noble Friend Lord Cope and his contribution towards improving the Bill. However, grave concerns were expressed about the Government's approach to the cost of licences. When they originally presented their White Paper, £22 was the best guess for the cost of the licence. By the time the Bill reached the other place, the cost had risen to between £35 and £40, which the Minister repeated today. We are worried that, once we create a quango or new authority with wide powers to increase charges, they will go up and up.
Lord Bassam spoke of his desire to ratchet up standards. We fear a ratcheting up of costs and prices. We shall continue to ensure that there is proper scrutiny. Although the Bill has merits, we hope that the Government will not try to rush it through. We want to ensure that before it becomes law, there is proper protection, analysis and scrutiny, which the Government have denied other Home Office legislation.

Mr. Doug Henderson: I want first to declare an interest as a member of the GMB union, which has many members in the industry, and as the union official responsible for much of the industry in the early 1980s.
I welcome the Bill. As the Minister recognised, much has been written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and others about the history of the security industry in this country. Originally, it employed many people from a military background and retired police officers. Much of the industry was born in wartime as a result of the need for additional security. During the 1960s and 1970s, the private sector business began to develop, servicing companies that wanted to improve their internal security.
There are a great many reputable companies with which I have had contact over many years. Throughout that time, they have endeavoured to raise the credibility of the industry, to have honest contracts, to provide honest security, to employ honest people, and to do a good job for the people whom they serve. However, they have had difficulties in some sectors. Differentiation of services by reputable companies means that some sectors regulate themselves. I know that the cash-in-transit sector is included in the Bill, but the market has good control over much, although not all, of that sector, which raises standards. That is due to the endeavours of the traditional, larger companies in the industry.
At the other end of the industry— the "man guarding" end—it has been an uphill task for those employers and employees who want to raise standards. There are two reasons for that. The first is the lack of wage regulation. It was difficult for a reputable company such as Securicor, Group 4 or Chubb to try to raise standards if a cowboy company said that instead of wanting £5 an hour as a contract price, it was prepared to do the job for £1.20 an hour. The consequences were that their staff were employed at 50p an hour—that is an accurate figure, as I am sure hon. Members will recognise—when the basic wage paid by a local authority was £1.75 or £1.80 an hour. That differential meant that reputable companies were continually being undercut.
The second reason, which is the corollary of the first, is that companies were employing people so cheaply that their margins were too tight to enable even the reputable

ones among them to cover the on-costs of training or of vetting to keep out criminal infiltrators. Some of the companies would use the same uniform for two people on different shifts. At that time, the early 1980s, the reputable companies, the trade unions and the British Security Industry Association decided that something should be done.
We now know that the wage problem has been at least partially resolved by the minimum wage legislation, which I welcome. The biggest impact that the legislation had on male employment was in the security industry, where it has done a great deal to raise wage levels and allow companies to compete on a fairer platform. However, there is still a problem to be solved, and I welcome the Bill because it attempts to lay down rules within which people will have to operate if they want to provide private security. It will hit the cowboy companies, some of whose practices are atrocious. Apart from making employees share uniforms, they intimidate customers into taking their security services to the exclusion of those offered by other companies. They deliberately employ known criminals to case the joint so that others can come in later and make merry. Health and safety considerations are unknown to such companies.
When I was a union official, a shop steward came to me and said, "I really have to complain about this." I told him that I had heard all the complaints before. He told me, "We are trying to provide a decent service, but I've just been along to a site that we cover from Monday to Friday. When I left at 4 o'clock on Friday afternoon, I handed over the keys to a certain face, but when I came back at 6 o'clock on Monday morning, the same guy was still there and asked me 'Can I go home now, mister?' I told him he could." We checked it out and found that a contract security company covered the site at the weekend and that one person had been on duty from Friday afternoon right through to Monday morning.
Incidentally, I do not think that the individual concerned would have been entitled to British citizenship. Some of the companies employing such people exploited the corruption in our immigration rules, and although I would not want to deny anyone employment, people should go through the proper procedures to enable themselves to be employed. That case convinced me that something had to be done about the industry.
The Government are right to regulate. There is no argument to be made that we are intervening unnecessarily in the private sector. I am no believer in unnecessary intervention and regulation: if the market can deal with a situation, it should be left to do so, but if it cannot deal with a situation—I do not think that it can in this case—there is a need for state intervention. Winston Churchill said words to that effect in 1912 and I do not see why I should disagree with them today.
The Government are also right to set up the Security Industry Authority. Again, I am not one to argue in favour of having more quangos if another way of addressing an issue can be found, but we need a body that is at arm's length from the Government. Here, I add my voice to a plea that has already been made to the Minister by constituents and union members to whom I am close. When appointing people to that body, please will he appoint someone who is credible, has experience,


is convincing, and will pull the industry forward? There is a fear that others will dance circles around someone who is not so qualified.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. I tried to emphasise that exceptionally important point in my speech and he is right to raise it again, as are others. Independence and integrity are critical to the whole system.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I shall be happy to give way to him at any time if he wants to comment in a similar vein. His response will be warmly welcomed by those concerned.
The Government are right to concentrate on individual licences, but I am not sure about the cost. We are supposed to be encouraging welfare to work, to use the current phrase, but someone who wants to get off the dole and into a job will regard £40 as a high price to pay for a passport to that desirable end. Can the Minister be a little more innovative: for example, might it be possible to set up a special scheme or training programme—perhaps paid for by the levy—to help those who are out of work, or might the companies be persuaded to make a contribution?
It is important that we reach a clear understanding about training, especially essential training. We are not talking about a four-year apprenticeship, but there is a need to be specific about the sort of training that is required. In addition, skills will have to be updated as conditions in the industry change and new technology is introduced. We all look forward to hearing the Minister's comments in that respect.
The Government must think again about the regulation of companies. I understand the arguments that the key issue is ensuring that the individuals who actually provide the service are properly vetted and trained and that the market mechanism enables clients to decide which company can provide the best and most credible service. However, I think that the industry needs a bit of a fillip, which could be provided by ensuring that companies have to register. If there is a case for voluntary registration, why not go the whole way and have mandatory registration? That is the way to ensure that the high standards to which the Minister and others have referred are adhered to.
If we do not have mandatory registration, criminals may set up a security company, insist that their employees go through a vetting process, and then use that information to conduct criminal activity. I may be wrong, but I do not think that that would be caught by the Bill. It would be better to put extra responsibilities on the directors. If they work as security officers, they are covered by the Bill, but, worryingly, if they are backseat directors running a criminal activity, they are not. I wonder how the police view the matter; I think that they would have reservations about that aspect of the Bill.
We have regulation in the banking industry because the market did not take care of it. Too many people had too much inside information to be able to give objective financial advice, so it was decided that they should state their interests before giving financial advice. Essentially, that is what the regulatory authorities in the finance

industry are about. Financial institutions are asked to register so that people know where they are coming from and are aware of their asset bases. There is a parallel in the security industry as it, too, must combat crime. There is a strong argument that security companies should have to demonstrate their credentials and register them with the authority. That would not be a major incumbency on those companies—from the point of view of minimising regulation, one cannot argue that it would be an additional burden. It would be a fairly small administrative task which companies should be well able to undertake, considering that they have to regulate all their contracts with clients and make sure that everyone is in the right place, at the right time, doing the right thing. That is a complicated business, but registering the basics would be different.
Others have argued that there is a case for registering in-house security staff. I recognise the argument in favour of that, but, to be honest, I also recognise the argument that it should be left alone as the market can take care of it. People who employ staff directly can make decisions on their quality, how they should be vetted and so on. The jury is out on that one, and I would like to see how things develop before insisting on such registration. However, the question of registering companies needs a rethink, and the Minister may have an opportunity to do that in Committee.
As I said, I very much welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. It addresses the genuine fears of people in all walks of life who are connected with the security industry, including the police, the companies themselves—whatever their size or shape—and, perhaps most importantly, those who work in the industry. Like other Members, I am concerned about the late introduction of the Bill and I am worried that it may not reach the statute book before the next Parliament. If it does not, I hope that it will be reintroduced. After 20 years or more of debate, there is more unity on the issue than there has ever been. I urge the House to agree to the Second Reading today and, if necessary, agree to that again in the next Parliament.

Jackie Ballard: Unlike the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), I do not have any interests to declare. Touch wood, I have not been wheelclamped yet and have not been bounced out of a nightclub. The Minister will be interested to hear that. In Committee, I usually divulge aspects of my life that engage him, and about which Conservative Members make notes for their leaflets.

Mr. Bercow: Give us the details.

Jackie Ballard: I said that I had not been bounced out of a nightclub. I am not going down that track.
My party does not support unnecessary and over-bureaucratic regulation, but we welcome the Bill, which will regulate an important sector of private industry that directly affects the safety and security of the public. Lord Thomas of Gresford led for us in the other place and set out our generally supportive position on the Bill. However, he also raised several issues of concern, some of which the Government responded to in the other place, and others which we shall seek to address in Committee.


As other Members have said, there is a clear need to regulate the private security industry, which is a large, important sector that affects the public, often in their daily lives.
It will come as a surprise to many people that the industry is not already regulated, and as a surprise to others that it has taken so long to regulate it. According to the Library briefing, there have been 17 private Members' Bills on the subject in the past 20 years, so the Opposition cannot claim that they were exactly hyperactive in ensuring that legislation was enacted during their 18 years in government.
As the Minister said, some 350,000 people are employed in the industry, but the total number is not precisely known. That in itself is an argument for regulation. Many of the functions performed by the industry straddle the boundary between the private and the public sectors, so it is important that it is subject to regulation not only to ensure high standards, but that the limits of the powers of private security operators are clearly defined. The public need to have confidence in the system, and it is important that the industry and the people who work for it and with the public are subject to checks and balances.
It has been widely reported, including in Home Office research studies, and as we have heard from other hon. Members, that there has been a relatively high level of criminality in certain sectors of the industry, particularly among door supervisors, or bouncers. That has been reduced considerably in recent years with the introduction of door safe schemes and proper training and supervision, which many local authorities have pioneered. However, as so often happens, it takes only a few rotten apples to give an entire sector a bad name. No doubt that is why so many companies involved in the business have welcomed regulation.
In common with other hon. Members, I have had letters from companies that operate internationally, pointing out that the UK is one of the few countries in which they operate where there is no licensing system, and the only country in the EU other than Greece where the industry is still largely unregulated.

Mr. Bercow: It was estimated in 1996 that approximately 2,600 crimes were being committed each year by people hiding behind the disguise of a security officer's uniform. The hon. Lady said that the position had improved in recent years. Has she any idea of what the figures were for last year?

Jackie Ballard: No, but I am sure that with his encyclopaedic brain, the hon. Gentleman does. I note that in 1996, his party was in government, and I am surprised that it did not do anything to address the number of crimes attributed to the industry.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs 1995 report stated that standards, particularly for training, in much of the sector were unsatisfactory and below the standard that the public needed and had a right to expect. That report was published during the time that the hon. Gentleman's party was in power. The Select Committee's comments applied particularly to the manned guarding sector, and the same sentiments are expressed by a large part of the industry. The Bill is therefore widely welcomed.
The debate so far has concentrated on the personnel employed in the guarding sector. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North gave an example of the

exploitation of an employee. I recently spent a day with an inspector of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in my constituency. We were called to a site where a member of the public had reported that a dog was employed, so to speak, as a security guard. The person who made the report was concerned that no one had been seen coming to feed the dog. It was on a long chain, and no suitable shelter had been provided for it. I mention that in passing; the House may wish to take up the matter at a future date.
I come to specific issues in the Bill. We welcome the setting up of the Security Industry Authority, although that entails the creation of another quango. It comes rather rich for the Conservative Opposition to criticise the Government for creating even more quangos, but I can safely criticise them. Both the other parties have created many quangos, but I can claim that my party has not, particularly in the past 90 years. When we are given the chance in a few weeks time, we will not do so either.

Mr. Adrian Bailey: Does the hon. Lady concede that virtue comes easy to those with least attractions?

Jackie Ballard: I think that I should be upset about that intervention. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to see me later.
We welcome the establishment of a body that is responsible for regulating the industry through licensing, inspection and setting or approving standards, and for overseeing implementation of the Bill and making representations to the Secretary of State with regard to further legislation. However, we want further to examine the body's composition in Committee, because as the Bill stands, its membership is selected entirely at the discretion of the Home Secretary. There is an argument for its composition to be specified in legislation, in the same way as that of many other quangos. The Minister said that there would be a place on the authority for representatives of the industry. I understand also that the Government gave assurances in the other place that they would consult the industry on other appointments. However, we would like further clarification, so perhaps the Minister can provide that today.
We welcome the introduction of mandatory licensing for people who are involved in the private security industry. That provision lies at the heart of the Bill's intentions, as it seeks to ensure that certain minimum standards are met. We also welcome the Government's clarification in the other place about who is subject to licensing and who is not.
However, if the Bill is to ensure that the whole industry is subject to the same standards, I must reiterate the question that my noble Friend Lord Thomas asked in the other place: why are licences not required for in-house operatives? In reply to my intervention on the matter, the Minister said that the 350,000 figure included in-house operatives. The Government's White Paper said that members of the public should be encouraged to ask to see an individual's licence. How will the public know that they should not do that if the individual in question is an in-house operative? Such a discrepancy will lead to confusion. The White Paper also said that regulation would apply to the whole of the manned guarding sector and that the exclusion of in-house security personnel from


the scope of licensing would create an unacceptable loophole and reduce confidence in the system. Notwithstanding the Minister's remarks, we will pursue that issue in Committee.
We also seek clarification on the Secretary of State's power to exempt particular individuals from the licensing requirement. In what circumstances is that power likely to be employed and what criteria will be used? We recognise the need for the authority to set licensing criteria, but there is no indication of what those criteria should be, beyond the requirement that the individual concerned must be
a fit and proper person
to be engaged in licensable conduct. The definition of that requirement and the specific criteria that stem from it are for the authority to decide. My noble Friend Lord Thomas said that the term "fit and proper" was a "chestnut of a definition". Case law suggests that considerable discretion is used in interpreting the term. According to Lord Thomas, it makes many barristers "happy chappies". Of course, if he wanted to be politically correct, he would have said "happy chappesses".
We welcome the Government's amendment to the appeals provisions, especially with regard to licences. We also welcome the approved contractors scheme, which is an important way of ensuring high standards throughout the industry. However, I repeat the question that we asked in the other place: why is the scheme voluntary and not mandatory? That question is especially important if the Government are seeking to ensure high standards across the industry. We acknowledge their argument that there is provision for the Secretary of State to make the scheme mandatory if the conditions call for that to happen. We also accept that they do not want to overburden the authority or the industry in the early stages of regulation. However, it has been argued that there is a need for a more robust scheme, because that is the best way of ensuring effective regulation of the industry. That argument was well expressed by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North.
We recognise that the powers of inspection and entry are a necessary measure of enforcement. However, I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised to learn that we will be concerned to ensure that those powers are not disproportionate and that individuals' privacy is properly respected, in the spirit as well as the letter of the Human Rights Act 1998. We welcome the amendments made by the Government in the other place to refine the authority's powers of inspection and entry. The amendments were tabled after my noble Friend Lord Thomas expressed concerns about the matter. We will reconsider the provisions, however, to satisfy ourselves that they do not unnecessarily impinge on civil liberties. In particular, we would like to ensure effective scrutiny of the guidelines adopted by the authority with regard to the powers.
Two other issues have caused us some concern. First, I understand that on Report in the other place, the Government tabled amendments that sought to exempt from the licensing requirements accountancy firms that are engaged in activities that are included within the scope of the Bill. I am told that the amendments were tabled because of representations made by the accounting community, but I know that some sectors of the security

industry have expressed anxiety that such measures will lead to an uneven playing field between different types of consultancies that offer essentially identical services. Will the exemption give investigative services departments within accountancy firms an unfair competitive advantage over private sector investigation agencies?
Secondly, other hon. Members have mentioned the need to keep an effective check on the operations of the industry, as well as to maintain standards. We are concerned to ensure that the security industry does not assume a more extensive public role. In other words, we should not allow licensed private vigilantes.
The Minister began the debate by setting the Bill in the context of the Government's approach to crime and disorder. In the introduction to the White Paper, the Home Secretary stated that
there will be the opportunity for the private security industry to play a wider role in securing community safety.
He went on to state:
It has also been suggested recently that the private security industry might be able to assist the police by providing a form of complementary patrol service. The Government is considering the issue and welcomes constructive debate in this area.
In response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), the Minister said that the Government were convinced of the importance of the office of constable and would do nothing to diminish it, but he said nothing about limiting or extending the tasks to be carried out exclusively or primarily by people holding that office. We are concerned about that. We believe that the patrol of private property by a private company is one thing, but that private patrolling of public property is quite another.
Although we broadly welcome the Bill and believe that it deserves a Second Reading, I have flagged up a number of issues that we will want to consider very closely. We will seek to make improvements with a view to ensuring that the industry as a whole is required to meet minimum standards, not only some parts of it. We want the Bill to capitalise more fully on the White Paper, and we also see the need for safeguards in respect of the SIA's powers and any unnecessary extension of the Bill's provisions on inspection and entry of premises. We look forward to seeing improvements to the Bill in the weeks ahead and hope that it will be enacted before Parliament dissolves.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly. It is an important measure that builds on the Government's policies for security and law and order. The issues that it addresses are of particular importance to our seaside and coastal towns, one of which I represent. The provisions are not narrow, tidying-up measures for places such as Blackpool, as the Bill raises significant public order issues that relate to how seaside and coastal towns should promote a culture of quality and reliability, and an antipathy to the yob culture that too often disfigures them. They relate also to how we should prevent actions that will upset residents and tourists in such towns and damage their tourist image.
My interest in those issues derives not only from a general interest in matters that affect seaside towns—I am president of the British Resorts Association and convenor of a Back-Bench group of MPs who represent seaside and coastal towns—but from the effects on my constituents of


many of the issues raised in the Bill, especially in relation to local private security and wheelclamping. In the light of public concern about no-go areas in seaside towns, the Bill provides an important balance and reassurance to people who are concerned that proposed modernisation of the licensing laws—and perhaps, dare I say it, of the casino laws—will have a negative impact on the character of their towns. The reassurance and regulation that the Bill offers are therefore important.
The Bill is about securing comfortable public space and balancing rights. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 19 July and said that the activities of some of the private security and clamping businesses that attracted increasing numbers of local complaints were also beginning to have a negative impact on tourism, which is crucial to the economy of many seaside and coastal towns. Small and medium-sized businesses, which are central to generating prosperity in the leisure and tourism industry, are anxious for the Government's proposals on regulation, as outlined in White Paper, to be implemented as soon as possible.
I was therefore delighted when the White Paper's proposals appeared in the Queen's Speech and later in the Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister and the Home Office team for fighting the cause vigorously with Government business managers and giving us the opportunity to consider the measure today.
I want to concentrate on wheelclamping and security, which the Bill regulates. Wheelclamping has long been a matter of dispute. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who have eloquently and persistently spoken about the issue. The Library research paper reminded us that it has featured in private Members' Bills since 1969. It is therefore important to consider it properly, now that it has the advantage of inclusion in a Government Bill.
It is perhaps instructive to quote the Automobile Association on cowboy clamping. It states:
One unsavoury practice of the cowboy clamper is that he will often lie in wait and target his victims—seeking out the elderly, disabled, young mothers with children and people who will pay up with little fuss.
That is amply corroborated by examples from my constituency. The AA also states:
Cowboy clampers can rarely be traced as they mostly use mobile telephones and work from Post Office box addresses—people lucky enough to track down a clamper, who has acted illegally, can sometimes pursue them through the small claims court. However, they rarely respond to letters and telephone calls.
After I sounded off about wheelclamping in the local paper, I received a visit at one of my advice centres from a large and burly representative of such a company. I am still here.
I pay tribute to all those in my constituency who have raised the issue, especially Mr. Alan Smith, trading standards officer for Blackpool borough council. I also pay tribute to the local police, who were sympathetic if often frustrated that current law did not allow them to intervene more vigorously, to my local paper, The Gazette, which has run an effective campaign through detailing some of the activities of wheelclampers, and to my local hotelier group and others who have approached me on the subject.
It is testimony to the continuing, diverse attractions of Blackpool that other hon. Members throughout the country gave me examples of the effects of rogue

wheelclampers on their constituents when they visited Blackpool. From memory, I can name my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Mr. Turner) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna), and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis).
Perhaps the best example of rogue wheelclamping inflation that I have come across was described in a letter that I received in the first week of January from Mr. and Mrs. Salmon from Guisborough in Yorkshire. They had the misfortune to attend the new year's eve ball at Blackpool tower. I am sure that it was a great and elegant occasion, but when they returned to where they had parked their car—they believed that it was a perfectly proper parking place—it had been towed away by a private firm called Mac Security. In view of the large amounts of money that the gentlemen subsequently pocketed, I am tempted to call it "Big Mac".
Mr. and Mrs. Salmon were given a mobile telephone number to ring, and told that the car would not be released until after 9 am on new year's day. Their letter states:
We were told to ring back in the morning and to have two hundred and fifty pounds in cash for the release fee … This resulted in us having to wait outside in the cold till 3 am until we were able to get a taxi (at a cost of twenty pounds) … We then had to pay a further twenty pounds for a taxi to return to Blackpool later that morning with two hundred and fifty pounds cash to get our car back.
I could cite several other examples.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) referred to the practice of targeting women. One of my constituents who was eight-and-a-half months pregnant was left in a Blackpool car park after finding that her car had disappeared. She had to pay £205. A deaf and dumb holidaymaker was stranded when his car was towed away. In nine months, police in Blackpool received approximately 131 complaints about clamping. The aforementioned gentleman who visited my surgery finished off his nine months by extracting from an elderly couple from Lytham in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) a sum equivalent to their weekly pension after a late-night confrontation with them.
What do people receive for the money? In the last case that I cited, the people received a squiggly receipt for £250 in cash, written on a torn-out sheet from a plain invoice book. It contained no phone number or details of a registered company. There was no form of redress whatsoever.
The Bill therefore tackles significant abuses, and I am delighted that our Government have picked up the torch. I was surprised that an element of the old Adam remained in some Opposition Members. That was shown by the amendments that Lord Cope tabled in another place to restrict the ability to license wheelclampers. Such a restriction would not have conveyed the right message. Although the matter must be kept under review, I hope that the Government will resist similar amendments.
When, God willing, the Bill receives Royal Assent, it is important that the police use their initiative to pursue and control clampers in the period before the Bill is fully effected. I speak for several hon. Members who have been frustrated by the slow progress of police and local authorities in implementing anti-social behaviour orders. I hope that those problems do not occur when the Bill is enacted.
I want to consider the second aspect that especially interests me and on which the Bill provides particular relief. Licensing security companies is a key issue in


Blackpool. We may not be able to compete with the figures that my hon. Friend the Minister provided for Manchester or his triumphant tour through Norwich, but it is not unusual for 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 mainly young people to be in the pubs and clubs of Blackpool town centre between midnight and 2 am on a Friday or Saturday. As most people know, Blackpool attracts between 6 million and 8 million visitors a year, and there are no fewer than 58 clubs in the town centre. Clearly, in those circumstances, regulation of the behaviour of security staff—bouncers, as they are colloquially known—is of key importance, in terms not only of setting the tone for whether people have a good night out, but of preserving public security and public order.
I pay tribute to the fact that much of the self-regulation in many clubs in my constituency and elsewhere has been proactive and responsible. However, as the Minister and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath made clear, there have, sadly, been too many cases in which it has not. In my constituency, I have been involved in issues that have convinced me of the need for regulation. I was involved in a campaign to get to the bottom of a particular case before I became a Member of Parliament, while I was a prospective parliamentary candidate. The case involved a young man of 17 who died after taking an overdose of ecstasy, having been admitted to a club in a condition that any reputable or sensible bouncer would never have permitted.
On another occasion, I visited Wakefield prison, to talk to one of my constituents who was serving a sentence for murder. I do not want to comment on the specifics of that case, as it is still before the Criminal Cases Review Commission, but my conversations with him—along with other background information—revealed the hidden twilight world of drug dealing in which, all too often, relations between unlicensed bouncers played a significant part. In my constituency last year, there was also very sad case involving a young man—he was a doorman—who was savagely beaten almost to death outside one of our clubs in circumstances that underline the need for proper licensing of doormen.
We need the controls that the Security Industry Authority will provide. It is sensible that there is to be a right of appeal locally, but I want to flag up a concern, which has been referred to already, about clause 4(1). There may be rightful concerns about the weaknesses involved in excluding in-house staff who are not bouncers from the remit of the Bill. In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Bassam, in outlining the reasons for that decision, said:
The Bill proposes that individuals in the manned guarding sector should be licensed if they are providing services under contract to a client. We do not propose to require them to have licences if they are employed in-house by companies. These companies will already have satisfied themselves about their employees, and the Government do not wish to foist onto them an additional layer of checking where it is not necessary."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 576.]
I applaud that spirit. Speaking as a Member of Parliament with a large number of small and medium-sized businesses in his constituency, I would not want those businesses to be overburdened with regulation.
It is right that we should be concerned about bouncers and that the Government have addressed that issue in the Bill, but there are other security guards, especially in

seaside and coastal towns, about whom we should also be concerned. For example, there are security guards in amusement arcades, and in amusement areas where there might be private rides, most of which will be accessible by children not necessarily accompanied by an adult.
In those circumstances, I hope that the Government will take full and considered account, in the review procedure that they have proposed for the operation of the legislation, of the need to protect children from any rogue elements among such security guards. I would like an assurance that any procedures to check whether those guards are registered on the sex offenders' register, or are involved in any other child protection issues, will be properly taken on board if, as the Bill proposes, they are not to be separately licensed and regulated.
I welcome the Bi11 overall. It contains important provisions that will benefit my constituency specifically, and seaside and coastal towns in general. Those towns are doing a great deal to regenerate themselves with single regeneration budget money, town centre partnerships and community building. In a town such as Blackpool, in which history and geography have combined to pepper residents cheek by jowl in unprecedented numbers, it is particularly important that sensitive issues such as wheelclamping and security arrangements at places of leisure and tourism are properly regulated and give a sense of confidence.
It is not only the quality of life inside people's homes that is important in those towns, but the quality of life on the street and in other public places as people go about enjoying the facilities that towns have to offer. That is why the Bill will make such a significant and important contribution to the quality of life in seaside and coastal towns, and why I give it my strongest support.

Sir Norman Fowler: I agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) about the importance of seaside towns; he made that case extremely well. I also agreed with what he said about wheelclampers and with what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said about criminals employed in the security industry. He made the case for licensing in that area, and he was right.
I was once a director of the private security firm Group 4, but I have not been so since 1993 and I have no other connections with the private security industry.
This has been a long journey. In my view, the significant turning point came on 4 July 1973 when the Security Industry Licensing Bill was introduced in the House. I should make it clear that it was my Bill. It was one of the 16 or 17 Bills that have been introduced since 1969 on the subject. I said at that time:
My Bill is not a call for licensing for its own sake. It is a recognition that there are important issues at stake, issues involving public policy on crime and individual liberty and privacy. This industry is not one that can go entirely unregulated. The Bill would establish a licensing board on the lines of the Gaming Board. It would aim to ensure minimum standards throughout the industry and to eliminate the criminal element within the industry."— [Official Report, 4 July 1973; Vol. 859, c. 539.]
Many of those aims are echoed in the present Bill.
My Bill had the support of four formidable Conservative politicians of the time: Bill Deedes, Edward Gardner, David Walder and Michael McNair-Wilson.


Such was the force of our argument that the Bill passed without dissent, and the House moved on to an emergency debate on the railways—nothing changes much in the House. The only trouble was that it was a ten-minute Bill, and it has taken almost 30 years for the Home Office to catch up with the case that I was making.
It would be churlish of me, therefore, not to welcome the Bill that has now been introduced, and I do so gladly. I have, incidentally, a range of other measures that the Government might like to adopt, such as the privatisation of the Post Office; the ending of the £5 billion a year pensions tax; and the cancellation of the absurd rules on annuities. Perhaps when the Minister of State continues his upward climb in the Government he will take that into account.
I am afraid, however, that at this stage I can give the Bill only two cheers, because under the terms of the guillotine—which we call the programme motion and which we shall debate next—it stands a fair chance of going exactly the same way as my ten-minute Bill did in 1973. Under the guillotine, proceedings in the House are not planned to end until 1 May. A general election on 3 May would, therefore, kill the Bill stone dead. There would be no Act of Parliament, and no licensing system.
I should be happy to receive an assurance from the Minister of State that a 3 May election is the very last thing that he or the Government want. I know that he is on the inside track to No. 10, so if he is likely to give me that assurance, I of course give way.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance because I do not know what is in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. However, if an election were called for 3 May, is it the right hon. Gentleman's view that it would be helpful for the official Opposition to do what they can to secure the passage of the Bill during this Parliament?

Sir Norman Fowler: That is probably the most significant intervention that I have heard from the Government side about a 3 May election. I have not previously heard it put to the Opposition that we should be in the business of co-operating should a 3 May election be called. Those who heard the Minister's intervention may conclude that a 3 May election is becoming more likely, not less, but I leave it to the commentators to think about that.
The Bill is being debated on Second Reading, and although I am not in charge of Opposition affairs I think that it is a bit much to say to us that it should simply be ticked through. However, I listened to what the Minister said. I went on a deliberate fishing expedition, but I did not expect to land such a big catch.
Incidentally, I happen to take the old-fashioned view that Governments are elected to govern. Only when they have got through a crisis should they think about elections, but I am not at all sure that that is entirely their current view. Indeed, the Minister made that clear. Therefore, in such circumstances, my speech is directed as much to my own Front Benchers as it is to the Government, so that they will pick up the Bill after the election.
The case in principle for licensing private security remains the same as that outlined by me and others such as the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George).

I pay tribute to what he has done over the years in consistently making the case on licensing, which we have put to Governments of both parties, and it is good to see the west midlands mafia working together in such a way.
I was glad to hear the Minister talk about this thriving and successful industry. I welcome the words, but I must observe that they were not the ones that Labour Members used in opposition. The language of the Labour party has changed radically, but I welcome that conversion.
In our crime debates, we tend to concentrate on detection. Obviously, detection rates are vital, but so too, self-evidently, is prevention. The first orders issued to the Metropolitan police said:
It should be understood at the outset that the principal object to be attained is the prevention of crime. To this great end every effort of the police is to be directed.
As the years have passed, all European police services have been forced to give more priority to detecting crime, preserving public order and handling emergencies. Correspondingly, less police work has been devoted to preventing crime. One example makes the point.
In the late 1950s and the 1960s, the British police were still able to provide police escort services for cash in transit, but by the 1960s the increase in criminal attacks on cash being transported produced a demand for police protection that forces were unable to meet. The result in the 1960s and 1970s and since was the development of cash-in-transit services by private companies.
Such companies already offered guard services to protect offices and factories—the traditional role referred to by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North—but protecting cash in transit brought the private security industry face to face with the public, often for the first time. Not everybody liked what they saw.
The public certainly wanted crime to be prevented. They wanted burglars to be prevented from burgling and robbers to be prevented from robbing and they accepted, I believe, that the private security industry was crucial in that, but they also wanted the confidence that companies and the people they employed were providing such services properly. Furthermore, they needed to have confidence in the integrity and honesty of those companies and employees.
Of course, there is a civil liberties issue here. If we put a person in a uniform, put him in an armoured van and perhaps give him a stave to defend himself, to some extent we give him an authority that the ordinary citizen does not possess. Again, the public need to be reassured that that power, which is implicitly given to such people, will not be abused.
An enormous concern has been that people with criminal records have been employed in the industry. Back in 1973, I gave the example of a Manchester company run by a man who admitted that he had twice been convicted of grievous bodily harm and who employed four or five staff with criminal records, including one who had served sentences of three and five years for burglary and receiving. Over the years, there have been countless examples of that.
It is extraordinarily ironic that we have allowed that position to continue year after year. Given the intense struggle to establish an organised police force in this country, and given the special position that private


security companies hold in respect of the public, it is amazing that we have enabled anyone who wants to do so to set up such a company.
The case for licensing has been pressed for many years and I pay tribute to Jorgen Philip Sorensen, head of Group 4, who has worked so hard since the 1960s to achieve licensing. Goodness knows, there are many examples from other European countries to show the way. Most European Union countries have a licensing system. Belgium, for example, issues licences to security companies, which are subject to renewal after two years. Each has to provide a list of shareholders to prevent criminals from controlling security companies while staff are officially checked as being free from criminal conviction. Such systems in Europe have stood for many years as a sensible way forward.
I welcome most of the provisions. We have a private security industry that is probably bigger than the organised police force, so it is sensible to establish the Security Industry Authority, which will administer a compulsory licensing scheme for private security guards, door supervisors and the rest.

Mr. Clarke: In no sense am I making a partisan point and I gladly pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's efforts over his years in the House, but, given the powerful points that he has made, why did not the Conservative Government of which he was a member legislate on the subject?

Sir Norman Fowler: It is nice of the Minister to say that I was a member of the Government, but I have not been a member of any Government since the 1980s. I was not a member of the previous Government; I was chairman of the Conservative party, outside the Government and a simple Back Bencher. However, it is common knowledge that I have pressed Ministers of both parties to get down to it and introduce a licensing system.
The problem with the licensing system that is being introduced is not what is included, but what is excluded. I raised the issue of the regulation of alarm installers with the Minister and I heard what he said. Such regulation was an aim of my ten-minute Bill and I used the example of an alarm company employed by a firm to fit a window alarm. The alarm was so useless that when the very thing happened that it was supposed to guard against and a window was broken, it was not activated. Later tests showed that a whole troop of burglars could have processed through the window without the alarm system being activated or disturbed in any way whatsoever.
The installation of alarms is a question not only of quality, but of reassuring the public. Furthermore, it is important not only that the quality of the alarm and of the installation are considered, but that the householder is given reassurance that the installer, who, by definition, has to have access to the house, is a man of some integrity.
Burglar alarms no longer constitute an exceptional defence: we need only visit towns and cities to realise that. Years ago, in the 1980s—when I was a Minister—I toured a modest private estate in Liverpool. Every house had a burglar alarm.
I was reassured by what the Minister said. I gather that the Bill takes a first step, and that it will be possible to add to its provisions if problems arise. On that basis too, it deserves support. The "step by step" approach is surely sensible, from everyone's point of view. I have one important concern, however, which may sound strange coming from one who used to be on the board of a major private security company.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said towards the end of his speech. I feel that we should be concerned about the limits of private security. We have seen a massive extension of private security operations over the past 30 or 40 years: we now see private security companies dealing not just with cash in transit, but with prisoners in transit. The Minister challenged me about opposition and government. I recall that, in opposition, the Labour party said that the legislation governing the system of prisoners in transit would be repealed by an incoming Labour Government. I see no sign of that, but I welcome the conversion.
What I do not support is the use of private security to patrol our streets. That I think, is where a line should be drawn. Such a use of private security would take us back to square one: after all, it was the breakdown of private patrols that led to the establishment of an organised police service in the first place. It is crucial to the continuance of good police public relations for the job to be done by trained police officers—trained men and women to whom the public can turn for help, and whom they can trust.
Long ago, when traffic wardens were first introduced, it was optimistically said that they were there to help the motorist and to offer friendly guidance. I am not sure that many members of the public, especially motorists, see traffic wardens in that light today. Local authority parking attendants in particular do not come top of their list of the most helpful put lie servants whom they encounter. If anyone wants to verify that, I suggest that they drive around the streets of Westminster and try to park.
We should bear it in mind that in terms of relations between police and public, Britain is probably better than any other European country. That is not to say that relations cannot be improved. Some of the defects were highlighted in the Macpherson report. The police have to win the respect of ethnic minorities, just as the original police force had to win in the respect of the public. I believe, however, that much of the rapport between police and public results from the fact that we have a largely unarmed police force patrolling the streets. That force is visible and approachable.
I think that it would be fatal for those good relations if we gave such a role to private security—a move at which some have hinted. It is a highly skilled job that needs not just initial training but constant training throughout life, and is basic to the continuance of good relations in this country. I hope that, as well as performing a licensing role, the new authority will keep under review what private security should and should not do. That is surely a legitimate interest for it to have.
While I welcome the Bill, I think it necessary to keep in mind the limits of private security as well as seeking a degree of regulation for its activity. I obviously regret the fact that the Bill has come so late that the prospect of its enactment is remote, but I hope it will be noted that there is now a consensus in the House in favour of proceeding


along the lines proposed. It has taken 30 years for us to reach this point; it would be a tragedy were we to let the opportunity slip.

Ms Rosie Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his kind remarks, and congratulate him and his Department on the Bill. It is a credit to the Government that they have found time for it. As has been said, the last Conservative Government presented a Green Paper but failed to introduce any legislation to follow it up, despite pressure from Members of Parliament, motoring organisations such as the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association and, incidentally, the media.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) welcomed the Bill, but was a little less forthcoming about whether he supported any idea of encouraging Front Benchers to co-operate with the Government if a general election were called. Perhaps he might use his influence behind the scenes if necessary.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady is well aware that I am but a humble foot soldier. It is not for me to seek to intervene in these matters, which, of course, fall under the aegis of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran) and others. Will she in passing, however, be as gracious as she ordinarily is and acknowledge that her hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) himself lamented the fact that the Government had been so dilatory in introducing the measure?

Ms Winterton: I would not say that the Government were dilatory. I have campaigned for legislation such as this for a number of years, and I know that it has been important to get it right. There has been further consultation, in addition to that connected with the Green Paper. I also know that the Department has had to deal with other legislation. Let me add that after four years we have legislation, whereas after 18 years of Tory government we had none.
It will come as no surprise to Members that I intend to talk about wheelclamping. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces who is not present: obviously, he has ministerial duties to perform. Under the last Government, when Labour was in opposition, he campaigned vigorously for the outlawing of cowboy wheelclampers, and he was very helpful to me when I took up the issue. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who not only campaigned for such action in the last Parliament but ensured that it remained high on his agenda when he became a Home Office Minister. He was absolutely right to do so.
The problem of cowboy wheelclampers may be localised, as we have heard today, but when it occurs it causes incredible misery and distress. We all know—motoring organisations, among others, would confirm this—that wheelclamping can be an extremely lucrative business for anyone with a mobile tell phone, a strong arm and £50 for their first clamp.
Six years ago, the wheelclamping industry was estimated to be worth about £150 million annually. Until now, the lack of Government regulation has enabled

clampers to make plenty of money but provided clamped motorists with almost no protection. I do not think that anyone would argue that landowners should not have rights over their own property or be able to take action to deal with problem parking. However, we have to make it clear that when we talk about cowboy wheelclampers, we are talking not about proper parking control measures but simply about a money-making venture.
Wheelclampers have little incentive to stop people parking in restricted areas—quite the opposite. They want people to park illegally, as they would see it, because that is precisely how they make their money. They want to get people on to a given piece of land so that they can make money from them. Very many ordinary people have suffered at the hands of cowboy wheelclampers who, with their clamp-and-deliver tactics, have been described as modern-day highway robbers. Actually, I am the one who so described them, but I thought that the description was probably worth repeating. I should like to give a few examples of how they have achieved that reputation.
Only last week, I was contacted by a constituent named Jasmine Steers. She is a disabled woman who had parked outside a restaurant where she had often parked before. She had no idea that dampers were operating in the area, but was approached by some who demanded £70 in cash from her. In her letter to me, she said:
I needed to have my car as I am disabled and my children need picking up from school. I got my chequebook out to pay when the man turned around and stated he will only take cash …
I had to walk to my bank—remember I am registered disabled and walking causes me great pain—to get the £70 that he demanded. I would have thought that any legitimate company would accept a cheque. When I got the receipt, I noted that the company operates out of a postal box address. This sent more warning flags up to the legitimacy of this firm. I quizzed the man on who his boss was and he still refused to answer my questions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) said, cowboy dampers tend to pick on elderly people, disabled people and women who are on their own or with young children.
Another constituent of mine was clamped when she had her eight-month-old baby with her. She was extremely distressed by the circumstances, and said:
In effect I was being asked to hand over £70 to unidentified persons in the street, who got out of a private car and who claimed to be acting for a wheelclamping company on behalf of a property owner who they refused to identify.
Only yesterday, I was contacted by the British Parking Association about a woman in Harrow who had suffered at the hands of wheelclampers. She was fined £240 when her car was towed 20 miles away, to what seemed to her to be a dump. She was asked to meet a man at a railway station to be driven there so that she could collect her car. She was extremely frightened and felt very threatened.
Reputable wheelclamping companies have been pressing for the industry to be cleaned up. As the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) said, a few bad apples can give any industry a bad name, and that applies equally to the wheelclamping industry. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned the media's role in highlighting wheelclamping problems. I should like to acknowledge the role of the Yorkshire Post, the Doncaster Free Press, the Doncaster Star, the "Ed Doolan Show", BBC and ITV and everyone else who has raised the issue, drawn attention to it and helped in the campaign to get something done about it.


I am extremely pleased that the Government tabled and passed an amendment in the other place to ensure that landowners also take responsibility for what happens on their land. Very often, those who are clamped are told by the clampers that the landowner will receive no benefit from the fine. Landowners say that, as they make no money from clamping, they are not responsible for what happens and are simply trying to protect their property. People are, however, very suspicious about such declarations. Occasionally, when people are handing over cash to a clamper, they may feel that landowners sometimes rake off some of that money. It is sometimes difficult to avoid such conclusions.
It is therefore important and welcome that the Government have introduced that amendment, to ensure that landowners have a responsibility for the way in which clampers operate on their land. The fact is that land does not move—unlike dampers, who can operate with nothing more than a mobile telephone and a PO box and who do move. The amendment will make it possible to hold landowners to account. I am grateful to the Government for listening to my concerns and those of the RAC on the issue.
My only real concern with the Bill is that there will be delay in establishing the Security Industry Authority. I wonder whether there is some way to ensure that, once the authority is established, it will be able to consider complaints that are arising now. I know that organisations such as the RAC are keen to play a part in that type of arrangement. We have to send a message now to those people that this Bill will be coming into force and that these are the expectations that the authority will have of landowners and wheelclamping companies. I should like a record to be kept of current incidents involving outrageous behaviour, so that the authority can take those complaints into account when it starts considering to whom to award licences.
My hon. Friend the Minister and his officials have listened very carefully to the concerns of the police and motoring organisations on the issue. I pay special tribute to him because he really has listened. I think that everyone has been incredibly impressed with the way he has responded to concerns and taken them on board. I know that colleagues in those organisations would like to join me in thanking him.
I hope that, regardless of whether there is a general election in the near future, the Bill will be supported by Members on both sides of the House and that we ensure it is passed as quickly as possible. It is extremely important that we have consensus on the issue. Our ultimate aim is to send to cowboy wheelclampers the message that their bully-boy days are over.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I have now to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day. On the motion on Local Government, the Ayes were 362, the Noes were 134, so the motion was agreed to.
[The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

Mr. Peter Luff: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton). She made a characteristically thoughtful and sensible speech. For the second time in a week, I am about to speak in a debate on a matter on which there is a large consensus, and that grieves me—although I hope to inject some controversy into my later remarks.
I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on the Front Bench is going to say, but he is looking uncomfortable at the degree of consensus about the Bill evident across the House. Consensus is not his natural style, to his great credit, but he will have to demonstrate a good deal of it this evening.
It is also a pleasure to speak after my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Goldfield (Sir N. Fowler). Subject to the Prime Minister's decision, my right hon. Friend may have made his last speech in the House. In many respects, I hope that I will be proved wrong, but it was wonderful to hear him bring to fulfilment a campaign that has characterised his political career. I am sure that he was delighted to be able to speak as he did today.
I wish to speak on the security industry aspects of the Bill, and on wheelclamping. Both topics flow from constituency interests. I am privileged to have the British headquarters of Group 4 in my constituency—at least, the front gates and the postal address are in my constituency, and many Group 4 staff employed at Broadway in Worcestershire are my constituents, but the company's head offices are in fact situated in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). He and I therefore have an important constituency interest in Group 4. Incidentally, the British Security Industry Association has its headquarters in my home city of Worcester, which is not in my constituency.
The key message from Group 4, which should guide the House in its consideration of the Bill, is that the Bill contains no measure that a good company should not be pursuing already. If that is true, the Bill cannot be objected to in any real sense, and we should welcome it.
I am involved in a campaign—I hope that it lasts as long as that pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield—to bring a solution to the vexed question of foxhunting. I am struck by the strong similarities between the Bill and the proposals of the Middle Way Group, of which I am joint chairman.
I do not want a make a party political point, but it amuses me that the Bill appears to have passed through the other place without causing any significant controversy. Some useful amendments were tabled, and the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central mentioned the one relating to wheelclamping and land. In contrast, my humble proposal to license foxhunting seemed to engender much anger in the House of Lords.
It seems to me proper that an activity that impinges on other people, as the operation of the private security industry clearly does, should be subject to some form of statutory regulation or licensing. There is nothing wrong in principle with that, but in saying so I have to grapple with the other part of my persona. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will wind up the debate, and no doubt will exhibit a real reluctance—which I share—to impose excessive regulation.


I was not a member of the previous Government. I sat on the Government Benches and encouraged my colleagues, but they did not have the wisdom to include me in their ranks. I therefore cannot speak from inside knowledge, but I suspect that the reluctance to introduce regulation arose from the tension between an understanding that something had to be done to protect people—including employees—from a poorly run security industry, and an unwillingness to add to the bureaucratic burden borne by the private sector.
Therefore, if the Bill is granted a Committee stage, the House will have to consider how to strike the balance between those competing principles. It will also have to ensure that the Bill does not give advantages to the big operators and discriminate against the small ones—and I say that as Group 4's constituency MP.
The small operators are not always the cowboys in the industry. Group 4 is a role model for the industry rather than a cowboy, but some bigger firms' practices are also sometimes suspect. The balance between regulation and competitiveness is a difficult one to get right.
Group 4's position is straightforward. It has campaigned for 30 years for statutory regulation of the industry, so it is hardly surprising that it welcomes the Bill. Interestingly, the company states that the measure is a
vital first step towards the fullest possible regulation of the industry … We are pleased that the Bill provides for the possibility of converting the system of inspection and approval of security providers from a voluntary to a compulsory one.
It adds that it firmly believes that only a mandatory system will free the industry from the unscrupulous operators who would undermine it. If the Bill is enacted, the Minister must consider that matter carefully when he implements it.
Under the Bill, everyone in the industry—from chief executives and headquarters staff up to the guards and uniformed operators who offer security services in public places—will have to have a licence. I attended the lunchtime reception held today by the Police Federation, where I was reminded that police officers undergo an intensive training programme and a two-year probation period, and that they continue their training on the job throughout their careers. The federation contrasted that experience unfavourably with the provisions in the Bill.
The better companies offer intensive training, which continues throughout their employees' careers with them. It is right that that should happen, and it is important to recognise that private security staff do not merely hang around Woolworths or shopping malls, keeping an eye out for the occasional shoplifter. Such staff can be engaged in extremely difficult and testing situations.
A recent tragic case involved a security guard who refused to pursue a shoplifter out of a shop. His judgment proved to be correct—the shop assistant who did pursue the shoplifter was subsequently stabbed to death. That is the sort of challenging situation that can arise.
Security officers deal with people in public places, so they necessarily are exposed regularly to people's more eccentric acts. On occasion, private security guards have had to deal with people attempting to commit suicide by burning themselves to death, or with people trying to jump off bridges or hang themselves.
Training is needed to handle such difficult and sensitive situations. The industry is concerned that the proposed Security Industry Authority may not insist on sufficiently

adequate training when it issues licences. That is important, but the challenge that we must face is to ensure public safety while at the same time maintaining the right regulatory touch. If there is to be a Committee stage for the Bill, I hope that those of my hon. Friends who are selected for it will test the Government on what they anticipate will be the SIA' s action in that regard.
I emphasise that I am concerned about the lack of mandatory regulation for companies. I need to be reassured by the Government that they have done the right thing in not making the provisions of the Bill mandatory.
I said earlier that not all the cowboys are small operators: some are of quite a significant size, and can engage in some very off practices. At the moment, it is possible for people to be on the dole one hour, and in uniform and serving in very sensitive public places the next. I understand that that has happened in some prominent public buildings in London. The absence of a criminal record does not mean that a person is fit and proper to engage in sensitive public activities.
Companies must be well managed. Like the people whom they employ, they must also be fit and proper. The Government will have to consider that matter very carefully.
The independence and impartiality of the proposed S1A will be an important issue too. The SIA will have properly to reflect the interests of the different parties, both in the industry and among those who are served by it. Schedule 1 gives the Secretary of State power to appoint members of the SIA. Group 4 believes, and I am inclined to agree, that the framework for the composition of the SIA should be laid down in legislation. Group 4 also believes that the SIA should contain representatives from the industry, employees, customer groups and others. It suggests that the authority should have 12 members, and that that number should be set out in the Bill.
I believe that the Minister prefers a more flexible approach. That is another matter that needs to be tested in Committee.
Group 4 certainly believes that the Minister's proposal to leave wide discretionary powers with the Home Office will lead to uncertainty—to have a floating number of members is not practical. If the Government want flexibility, Group 4 thinks that it could be provided by allowing Parliament to consider the size and composition of the SIA at a later date, but for the time being to stipulate in the Bill what the size and composition are to be.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Does he agree that we require from the Government some practical reassurances in the Bill on the subject of the composition of the authority, in order to dispel any notion that either the present, or a subsequent, Home Secretary might try to use the power of appointment to the authority as an opportunity to offer somebody a bauble for loyal service in a wholly unrelated field?

Mr. Luff: As always, my hon. Friend makes an important point. The House is ill advised to give Ministers flexibility unless it is genuinely needed. Whatever Ministers' reasons for trying to distort the purposes for which they were given discretion in the first place, it is helpful if as much detail as possible is included in a Bill. At present, that is an unfashionable view; to be fair,


it was not especially popular with the previous Government either, but it has become splendidly unpopular—Bills are now largely concerned with setting up order-making powers for Secretaries of State. That is not acceptable.
Group 4's suggestion meets the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and me. It is that the authority should include two members from the industry's employers; two members from employees in the industry; one member from the police and criminal justice system; one member who represents local authorities; one representing insurance providers—an important group; and one member representing customer groups. The industry has some big customers who could easily supply an individual to fill that role. Finally, there should be a member to represent the public. That is a more difficult challenge—I always worry about the appointment of surrogates for the general public.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I understand the intelligent approach suggested by Group 4 and other companies in the field. However, how would the hon. Gentleman deal with the point that I made about the need to ensure that the authority is an independent organisation and not simply an agglomeration of special interests—however significant?

Mr. Luff: That is a philosophical debate. How can we guarantee independence if a Minister is given complete discretion to make appointments? With all due respect to the Minister, for whom I sincerely have a high personal regard, I do not trust him to behave independently in making appointments to a public body. I do not trust any Minister to do that. If Ministers have a framework in which to operate, the prospects of independence are enhanced. There is a debate to be had on that subject. The Minister smiles benignly; I am not sure whether that is from the knowledge that he has won the argument or because he suspects that there may be something in my argument. He nods to indicate the former. However, he needs to reflect on the matter.
The Minister should reflect especially on Group 4's point that there should be more than one representative from the industry. The industry is diverse, with companies of different sizes and scales of operation. At the very least, the authority should include a big fish and a small fish. It would be good if the Minister were to say that during this debate or in the Standing Committee.
I emphasise Group 4's excellent point about the desirability of including employees on the authority. The voice of employees needs to be heard loud and clear; they have often been the victims of badly run security companies.
The authority's powers are also of some concern. The Bill allows for the authority to establish minimum standards. Group 4's view is that minimum standards of training are needed and that they should be specified in the Bill. I made a similar point earlier, so I shall not labour it. Are Ministers really content that so much discretion should be allowed to them and to the authority in the formulation of proposals?
The subject of in-house security staff is contentious. Many people in the industry are worried about the exclusion of such staff from the Bill's provisions. Group 4

and the British Security Industry Association share those concerns. They believe that a two-tier system of private security could develop, and that
failure to regulate in-house staff may provide a loophole which could help unscrupulous people to find their way into the industry and undermine the very principles of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Home Office is currently not at the Dispatch Box, although he has been replaced by another Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), for whom I also have high personal regard.
I hope that Ministers will consider including provisions on in-house staff. The criminal justice White Paper provides for the extension of private sector work in policing; that is a powerful reason for arguing that case. The growing role of the private security industry in many aspects of the lives of local communities means that the industry must keep a watchful eye on the Human Rights Act 1998. We must be certain that the Government are right to exclude provisions on in-house providers.
The BSIA has concerns on that point:
There are two main points to consider here, a) businesses may choose to revert to in-house security, as it could become cheaper than employing contractors, once the cost of regulation has been added to contract prices, and b) individuals who cannot obtain a licence may seek work within in-house operations. It will be interesting to see what form of vetting the Government recommends for in-house security. Will businesses be allowed to access enhanced criminal records to assess the suitability of their in-house staff? If so, why not include licensing for in-house officers as a legal obligation?
That is a powerful case; the Government must answer it.
The burden of the cost of licensing must not fall on employees. I still have reservations about the minimum wage, despite everything that has happened. Recent increases in the rate will pose severe challenges for some businesses—not necessarily because they pay at that rate, but because of differentials. However, in the private security industry, the absence of a minimum wage often led to shabby treatment of employees. There is no doubt that scandalously love rates were paid, so in that particular industry, the minimum wage brought great benefits. The company should meet the cost of the licence and I hope that the Government will keep that firmly in mind.
I am slightly surprised that the Bill lists no exemptions. Group 4 suggests that the Act should not apply to
a police officer … a prison officer … a member of Her Majesty's armed forces … a member of the Ministry of Defence Guard Service … an officer or employee of a Government department, government agency or non departmental government body … a person who in whatever capacity carries out any designated activities in relation to a public works or supply contract relating to the provision of prison escort, custody and immigration services.
They are, of course, already separately regulated.
It is strange that there are no exclusions. It is important that correct boundaries and delineations be set out in statute; the case for exemption seems strong.
There is some urgency on these issues, because the Government seem to be planning to make much greater use of the private security industry. Indeed, we seem to be going through privatisation by stealth. I suppose that I should welcome that, but I am somewhat surprised


because when the White Paper on the industry was published in 1999, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South ( Mr. Boateng), said:
I have no plans for police patrol or any other police functions to be carried out by the private security industry, except that we have proposed that the escorting of certain abnormal loads should, in future, be carried out by the private sector Representatives of the police and other bodies have raised many matters in discussions, but neither I nor my Ministerial colleagues have proposed any changes to responsibility for police patrolling. No Ministerial committees or Working Groups are currently examining any such proposals.—[Official Report, 27 July 1999; Vol. 336, c. 263W.]
I found that answer difficult to reconcile with the White Paper "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead", published last month. It seems to have a different vision of the future relationship of the private security industry with the police service. In the chapter on the police, we are told that one of the key measures is
experimental accreditation of security or patrol staff from other organisations, working under police co-ordination to deliver improved community safety.
In a little less than two years, there seems to have been a huge shift in the Government's thinking.
The White Paper rightly notes:
There has always been a wide range of people contributing to community safety in various forms. These include park keepers (some with constabulary powers), security guards in shopping centres, car park attendants, neighbourhood wardens, night club bouncers and the private security industry. The issue for policing is how these various activities can be co-ordinated to make the most effective contribution to making safer communities.
The paper talks about the Private Security Industry Bill and the Government believing that there is
scope for some evaluated schemes to determine the effect on public reassurance of the police accrediting and co-ordinating a range of independent bodies to work in conjunction with them in delivering community safety.
It says that these activities could be co-ordinated with policing needs by an officer with an enhanced role as a community beat manager. That proposal represents a very significant shift in the Government's position.
Now here comes the more controversial part of my remarks—my more partisan remarks.

Mr. Bercow: indicated assent.

Mr. Luff: I see that my hon. Friend is pleased to hear that.
I am afraid that I am a bit cynical about this because police numbers are down, and in my area, very sharply down. The very useful document "Police Service Strength", produced by the Library, shows that under each and every Conservative Government, police numbers in West Mercia rose, sometimes by—

Mr. David Lammy: Does the right hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that—

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman

Mr. Lammy: I am sorry. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that between 1979 and 1997—for me, formative years—in constituencies such as Tottenham, crime increased by 166 per cent., and that the partnership approach that the Labour Government have put forward is what has begun to tackle that?

Mr. Luff: I am reluctant to be drawn too far into this argument, because I suspect that you would rule me out

of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me say this. Crime was falling at the end of the last Conservative Government, as a result of the measures that we introduced, and in recent years crime—especially violent crime—has been rising again, causing great distress to my constituents, so that kind of Millbank argument cuts no ice in Worcestershire. It is hardly surprising because in Worcestershire, police numbers have been falling for the first time in more than 20 years.
If the hon. Gentleman wants the figures for police numbers under the various Administrations, they increased by 9.9 per cent. in the first—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was quite correct when he said that if he went too far down that path, I would call him to order.

Mr. Luff: I certainly have no intention of going down a primrose path that leads to being out of order, but there is an important point here. The Government plan to make increased use of the private security industry in partnership with the police, and my contention is that they are doing so because police numbers are falling and the Government need to cover up for that loss of numbers. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, looks puzzled. I have no wish to make you unduly anxious about the orderliness of our proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will simply say that police numbers in Worcestershire increased under every Conservative Government and have fallen by 7 per cent. under the present Government. That is the fact that I cannot get on to the public record because there is a conspiracy of silence—

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Luff: With pleasure.

Mrs. Roche: I shall be extremely brief. The figures do not bear out what the hon. Gentleman says. If he looks at them, he will see that, during the Conservative years, police numbers were falling, and that it is only now, as a result of the resources that we have put in, that that picture is changing. That is the truth.

Mr. Luff: I am drawn into considerable difficulties here. I am glad to provoke the Minister, but she is simply wrong—as far as my constituency is concerned, at least.
In Lady Thatcher's first term, in West Mercia there was an increase of 9.9 per cent. In her second term, there was an increase of only 0.7 per cent. In the third term, under Lady Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), there was an increase of 5.4 per cent., and in the final term, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, there was an increase of 0.3 per cent. There was an increase—sometimes big, sometimes modest—in each and every Parliament. However, under the present Administration, police numbers have fallen by nearly 7 per cent.
Those are figures from the document produced by the Library, confirmed by Home Office figures published last week. I am not surprised that the Minister does not like to be confronted with the truth, but it is the truth. I am afraid that is why I am so cynical about provisions designed to increase the role of the private security industry.
I find it difficult to get this subject debated because, when I make these allegations, the BBC—not unreasonably—wishes to find someone to counter them, and there is a conspiracy of silence on the other side. No one will answer for those figures. They are a matter of fact and I am afraid that the Minister will have to accept it. I will happily give her a copy of this document after the debate. It is excellent; I commend it to her.
The use of the private security industry is a matter of some concern to the Police Federation. Fred Broughton, chairman of the staff association, has expressed his concerns. In a press release in 1998, he said:
Mr. Blair's comments"—
not the comments of the Prime Minister but those of the chief constable of Surrey—
show that chief officers do not appear to be able to guarantee effective patrolling strengths within their current budgets and are seeking ways around this … Our view is that
the proposals by the chief constable of Surrey to make greater use of the private security industry three years ago
will reduce standards with lesser calibre patrol officers with limited performance".
In a statement of the Police Federation's view on the proposal to use the private security industry more, which appears on its website at present, the federation says:
Private policing would operate against the public interest and any proposals to hand over the existing responsibilities of the police to the private sector should be strongly resisted. We do not want a two-tier system of policing, where those who can afford to pay for protection do so and those who cannot, lose out.
I am not sure that I go all the way with the Police Federation, but its concerns need to be addressed.
The security industry already has an important role—that is why the licensing proposed in the Bill is so important—in shopping malls, in prison escorts and in privately funded public patrols. In Group 4's own village of Broadway, in my constituency, there is a privately funded public patrol, which brings great comfort to the residents.
As the Government are obviously trying to privatise the police through the back door and to use the private sector more intensively than before, it is entirely proper that the industry should be more effectively regulated. More opportunity for Group 4 and the other operators, provided by the Government, should be accompanied by more responsibility, and that is essential if the services provided by these companies are to be acceptable to the communities and organisations that they serve.
I suggest one thought to the Minister. I understand that the Government have shown considerable reluctance to commit themselves only to employing registered companies. Obviously, when the Bill becomes law and is put into effect, all individuals will be licensed, but companies will not. There may be something to be said for the Government at least considering sending a message that they will use only companies that register, and will not just rely on those that comply with the literal terms of the Act and have their individual members licensed.
I shall try not to make my final point too long, but it is important. It follows on from the comments by the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central about wheelclamping.

She is right to say that there can be reputable wheelclamping: it does happen. I would like to have a wheelclamp for the cars that regularly park outside my flat, where they should not be. I have a notice that I run off from my word processor, which is fairly offensive and normally gets them moved, but it is nevertheless a problem.
The horror stories about wheelclamping are legion. Clampers in Doncaster threatened to hold a mother's three-year-old daughter to ransom until £60 was collected from a bank. Clampers in Sheffield demanded a woman's gold tooth as payment. One woman was asked for sex unless she came up with the release payment immediately. A hearse with a body in the back was clamped outside a church. Sixty-one year-old Marina Vine was clamped when, driving home from hospital following a chemotherapy session, she pulled over to be sick. This is the type of problem that we must deal with. There are real cowboys in the wheelclamping industry.
The British Parking Association, to its credit, has done its best to deal with this menace, but it has no powers. The code of conduct that it has drawn up contains some very welcome provisions. It says that
release should be undertaken within 2 hours of payment, and where the circumstances dictate that de-clamp operatives receive the release fee on site, they should attend the clamped vehicle to accept the fee and release the vehicle within 2 hours of the intent to pay being stated";
and that
enforcement staff shall be uniformed and carry photo identity cards";
and that
the release fee shall not exceed that which would be paid if the vehicle had been clamped on-street in that area as determined by the DETR (currently this is £45 to £58 outside London and £75 to £85 within London)".
It is difficult to reconcile all these good intentions with the activities of the cowboys. I have a constituent who wishes to remain anonymous because he is fearful of recriminations from the parking company. I had a representation from him in January. What happened was as follows:
My son was in my wife's car and he was stopping at the Copthorne Hotel in central Birmingham last Friday night. He was dropping off his suitcase at the hotel and was going straight out, he was unable to park at the hotel so he pulled his car onto some waste ground at the side of the hotel at 7.30pm.
My constituent admits that there were signs, although they were not very visible. He was actually doing something wrong.
He returned to the car at 7.45pm and it had been towed away within 15 minutes, there was a contact telephone number but the voice message said the office was unmanned until 9am.
When he phoned the office in the morning he was told he had to pay £240.00 cash to get his car back.
From what I have heard from the hon. Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for Doncaster, Central, £240 to £250 seems to be the cowboy going rate at the moment. My constituent continues:
When the 3 men arrived back with the car they wanted the £240 in cash and were not prepared to say who they were. As they were next to a police station, my son asked to have an address or a copy of the invoice so he could go into the police station to see if they were bona fide traders.
That was a prudent step for him to take. The letter continues:
This request was refused and the men drove off after a brief argument. Then when he phoned again the price to get the car back was £270.00.
The company involved is Parking Solutions (U.K.) Ltd, PO Box 7765, Halesowen, B64 6AY My constituent and his father have phoned Parking Solutions and the police, who said that it was a civil matter and there was nothing that they could do.
My constituent continued:
in the end we had to give in and pay the £270.00"—
I have the receipt here. He goes on:
To add to the saga damage has also been sustained on the rear bumper which they say is our problem (Seems there is a disclaimer on the notice board).
Since the weekend I have spoken to the police who say it is a civil matter, trading standards who say it does not fall in their area of responsibility. Birmingham Trading Standards advised me to check to see if they were a registered company and told me to contact the company Licensing Office".
All that work was done to try to deal with a cowboy contractor.
My constituent
spoke to Parking Solutions asking for details of their insurance company which they refused to do on the phone. They said I had to write in for this information which means I have to disclose my home address which I am not happy about
I understand my constituent's concerns about disclosing his home address. He continued:
I am now taking advice from Worcester trading standards who suggested I do the following which I have done:
Talk to the Tax Man and see if Parking Solutions declare the cash".
I hope that the hon. Lady will commend that course of action to her other hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Bercow: I am shocked by the example that my hon. Friend cites. I wonder whether he might choose to refer that important issue to the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal).

Mr. Luff: I shall carefully consider that characteristic suggestion from my hon. Friend.
My constituent has sent an invoice for the repairs to the company, but he used the address of the Worcester trading standards office, rather than his own, for fear of recrimination. He says that Worcester trading standards office advised him to
Send full details to my MP to raise in Parliament as they are also not happy with this practice.
It is a pleasure to be able to comply so comprehensively with a constituent's concerns.
Earlier this week, I received a very good reply from the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who is temporarily not present on the Treasury Bench, and my constituent will receive a copy of it tomorrow. I am pleased with what the hon. Gentleman says about the provisions on such incidents, but he adds:
Among other provisions, the code lays down both a ceiling on charges and a complaints procedure. Although we cannot say at this stage exactly what provisions a code under the Authority would include, we certainly envisage it covering both those points.

That returns me to my earlier points about the comprehensive nature of legislation. It is crucial that the code of conduct should include such matters, and I hope that it will. I would like the statute law to specify that the code should include such provisions.
For example, to return temporarily to foxhunting, we envisage that its codes of conduct will have statutory force and we specified some of the matters that should be included in those codes. I commend that course of action to the Minister. We should specify what the code of conduct should say about the greatest abuses. I am sure that the authority will take care of such matters, but we are here to act for constituents from whom we have heard horror stories.

Ms Rosie Winterton: We should consider the fact that if too much is laid down by Parliament, we may not be able to overcome some of the on-going problems. Some cowboy wheelclamping companies now adopt different methods, such as taking photographs of cars and sending out notices demanding penalties. It is important to be able to vary the code of conduct easily, without having to return the matter to Parliament.

Mr. Luff: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I obviously was not explaining myself clearly, and I apologise to her. I am saying that certain matters so obviously need to be encompassed in the code that they should be specified. We must ensure that the authority imposes a ceiling on charges and a complaints procedure.
I am not a lawyer; I do not understand the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and so on, but I think it sensible to allow the authority to insist on certain provisions. I certainly do not suggest that we should draw up a complete list; I am saying that it should at least state that a code of conduct should be established, dealing with such issues as the authority thinks fit, but including X, Y and Z. There is a strong case for ensuring that such issues are included.
I have spoken for 35 minutes, which is longer than I intended to when I rose, but these issues are important not only for my constituents—as employers, employees and as victims of cowboy wheelclampers—but for the general public, who want the security industry to offer the level of competence and security that they have a right to expect, but which has not been offered until now. I am sorry that the Conservative Government did not get around to resolving their own internal conflicts, which I discussed at the beginning of my speech, and I am glad that this Government have done so. They have fewer qualms about regulation than we do, but I commend them on the Bill. I hope that they will consider the detailed issues that I and other right hon. and hon. Members have raised, and that the Bill will reach the statute book at a relatively early date—notwithstanding the guillotine motion, which we shall debate later.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), I am member of the GMB, but that is not especially relevant to what I wish to say. I have not seen many of our wheelclamping colleagues at GMB branch meetings in Luton; it is possible that they are not even members of the GMB, so what I say will not offend fellow members.
I commend the speech made by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), especially the last part of it, in which he emphasised the importance of the police, who are unarmed and on the streets of Britain. We should be proud of them. Although there are always problems in policing and patrolling the streets of any country and any city, the police in Britain do a good job, often in difficult circumstances. They are often understaffed, and I shall deal with that in a moment.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said that particular qualities are required in the security industry. Police officers possess exactly those qualities. That suggests that there might be a case for extending, rather than restricting, the areas in which the police operate. I should not wish to see a creeping privatisation of the police force. Indeed, my constituents would prefer their streets to be patrolled by police officers, who are accountable to the police authority and the Home Office, rather than by private sector organisations. People might expect a Labour Member to make those comments, and I shall continue to hold that view.

Mr. Luff: I commend pages 83 and 84 of "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead", from which the hon. Gentleman will see that the Government have rather different plans.

Mr. Hopkins: I listened with interest when the hon. Gentleman was reading that document. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench will be aware that my constituents are keen to have more police on the beat and that, however the Government have done, we still need more, and they have a good case. There could be a little less trouble on the streets if we had a few more police. I shall certainly continue to write to my hon. Friends asking them to provide the resources so that we can have more police, especially in Luton, North, and, in equity, elsewhere in the country.
I very much welcome the Government's decision to regulate the private security industry and to take steps towards filling a gap that has existed for far too long. The Bill deals with a range of activities that we deride as "cowboy", but that is sometimes a slur on cowboys. I shall cite some examples from my constituency later.
I wish to focus specifically on wheelclamping and the impounding of vehicles parked illegally on private property. I have described what has been happening in my constituency in letters to Ministers, and I have described it publicly as "legalised mugging", because it seems tantamount to that. In my constituency at least, the charges imposed are extortionate—for example, £80 to release a wheelclamp, and £150 a day for an impounded car to be released.
There are many examples from all over the country, but in my constituency a middle-aged couple were delivering clothes to a garage at the back of a charity shop when wheelclampers pounced on them. The husband was sitting in the driving seat with the engine running while his wife quickly unloaded the car boot. His car was clamped while waiting, and he was surrounded by a gang of young men, demanding £80 to release the clamp. It is alleged that, at one point, one of the young men threatened to head butt the driver. By all accounts, the gang was very menacing indeed.
In another case, wheelclampers marched an old-age pensioner to a cash machine and made her withdraw £80 from her account to pay them, despite the fact that she had a disabled person's sticker on her car. Those are just two examples, and I shall not waste time describing others, as we have heard some previously.
The Government are right to want to regulate activities on private as well as public land. In one area of my constituency, there is a small unadopted road next to a shopping centre. Wheelclampers wait in a van and pounce as soon as a car comes round the corner and parks even temporarily with the driver still in it. They leap out, clamp the car and demand £80. That has happened time and again.
My concern is that the Bill deals only with private wheelclampers, but I have written to Ministers on more than one occasion urging them to consider the possibility that the local authority could play a role in wheelclamping even on private land. Local authorities undertake some wheelclamping, and they have a right to do that. For example, my local authority employed a private wheelclamping firm to undertake wheelclamping on its behalf. However, the authority sacked the company because it misbehaved in the way that other wheelclampers misbehave. Thus even when a local authority was involved and employed a private sector organisation, the private organisation behaved badly and had to be dismissed.
Local authorities are now considering other ways to overcome the problem. They and the police wish to wheelclamp in many cases, but the small amount of wheelclamping that would take place on local authority land would not be sufficient to make it financially viable for local authorities to set up a system involving a pound and a wheelclamping team. However, if they were given responsibility for wheelclamping in general within their area—for example, they could act on behalf of the police in an agency capacity or on behalf of local residents—they would have more scope and their greater activity might enable them to set up a self-financing scheme. A reasonable charge to the owners of the clamped cars would pay for the service, and the authorities would not even have to charge the private property owner on whose land the car was parked.
I have personal experience of the problem. I live a mile or so from Luton Town football club and it is customary for visiting fans to park their cars in the road outside my house. I do not mind that; it is not a problem. However, on one occasion, a group of young males parked their car in the driveway of my house. They locked it up and quickly ran away, and I was not going to tangle with them. When they returned, they jumped into the car and drove off.
I did not know how to handle that situation, because I certainly was not going to remonstrate with four large male football fans who were rather more youthful than me. I thought that they had been a bit cheeky, to say the least, but I had no one to whom I could turn. The police would not bother with such a case; they have more important things to do. The local authority has no role, and I was not going to get in touch with a private wheelclamping firm. I might have found that they were friends of the football fans—who knows?
In that case, one would have liked the local authority to have had a role. I would have liked to have been able to ring up the council and say, "Someone has parked in


my driveway. Can you bring your service round to deal with the problem?" The local authority would then have taken charge. People would not argue with it, because it would have the staff and the resources to deal with the problem. It would also have the police to back it up, should that be necessary. I would not have been happy to use a private firm, but I would have been happy to telephone the local authority. Therefore, we should consider giving local authorities a role in the future.
Everyone else in the Chamber seems to have an idea when the general election will take place. I do not, and the Government may be in office for the full five-year term. However, it is possible that the Bill will not reach the statute book before the election—whenever that may be. If it does not, I hope that a second-term Labour Government will reintroduce it and consider giving local authorities a role. They could permit and encourage—not compel or require—local authorities to play their part.
I have spoken informally to local government officers about the problem, and they have said that, provided that the scheme operated on a sufficiently large scale, they could operate it and would be happy to do so. Indeed, I know that some private citizens and firms have asked local authorities to impose restrictions on people parking illegally on private property. Local authorities cannot do that at present, but if a new Bill gave them the appropriate rights backed by law, they could certainly assist. That would work extremely well and everyone who faced the problem of illegal parking could telephone the local authority. To me, that looks like creeping municipal socialism, but I am not averse to that. I hope that the Government will, at least, consider that possibility in future.

Mr. David Lammy: I welcome the proposal to regulate the private security industry to ensure that those employed in it can carry out their jobs professionally. I say that because in the summer of 1991 I was employed as a security guard to patrol a huge building in Fleet street that was to house a large accountancy firm. Therefore, I am delighted that, 10 years later, I have the opportunity to speak in the House on this subject.
I am sure that many Members recognise that the private security industry in London and the major conurbations employs many ethnic minority people. I was a student who needed work during the summer holidays and I know that many young men and women—both black and white—take up such employment primarily so that they can read their law or biology books while they are on night patrol, ensuring that buildings are kept safe and sound.
However, the industry also provides permanent employment because many people in communities such as mine in Tottenham are in lower socio-economic groups and take up much needed work in that sector. I was saddened, therefore, when I heard the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) challenge the minimum wage. Many people in the industry rely on it, and I am glad that the Government have recently increased it.
Many young people and those in lower socio-economic groups will welcome the fact that, to some extent, the industry will be professionalised, regulated and supervised. They do not want to work alongside people

who have criminal convictions and they do not want to be vulnerable in the workplace. They want to be recognised for the service that they provide and the Bill will, at long last, give them security. I welcome that.
By definition, private security employees are entrusted with protecting people. Whether they are security guards, door supervisors, professional security investigators or, indeed, wheelclampers, it is in everyone's best interest that people employed in positions of such trust should meet required standards and be registered for all to recognise. The Bill will promote standards within the industry and serve the public interest.
I appreciate that the private security industry covers several activities, but the sector that springs to my mind, as the youngest Member of the House, is the door supervision sector, which is made up of people who are readily known as "bouncers". I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends have at one time—perhaps in the not too distant past—been under the so-called protection of bouncers and many will have children who frequent pubs and clubs. Such venues attract a large number of young people, often under the influence of alcohol—legitimate, of course—on a Friday or Saturday night.
Bouncers have unfortunately been a magnet for illegal drug dealing. We had a problem with a small underground club in my constituency. Drug dealing often stems from the people who are meant to protect our younger generation. Unfortunately, many of us have examples of bouncers who engage in criminal activity. In some London clubs, they take drugs off the dealers, kick them out and peddle the drugs themselves. I am delighted that the Bill will at last ensure that drug dealers and criminals will be unable to engage freely in that activity in our clubs. Many bouncers have also been too readily involved in physical assaults on people who have gone out to enjoy themselves on a Friday or Saturday night. There is no justification for that, as I am sure all hon. Members would agree.
Legislation is the only way to ensure that such problems do not occur and that no bouncer has a criminal background. It sends a clear message that inappropriate behaviour by those workers, who are entrusted with the care of the public, will result in their licences being revoked. All aspects of the private security industry will benefit from the promotion of standards that will result in regulation, and I hope that there will be a more creative use of private security workers.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's announcement about extending neighbourhood warden schemes, especially in deprived areas. It must be clear from the outset that the use of private security guards to patrol housing estates, parks or other public areas should only complement the work of the police. I was saddened, if not surprised, to hear the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire challenge partnership schemes, which I think are the future of crime prevention.

Jackie Ballard: How does the hon. Gentleman envisage preventing private security operatives from substituting for the police rather than complementing their work?

Mr. Lammy: That is not a matter for me. However, partnership must be the way forward. In deprived areas such as mine, the police can never police on their own.


They rely on the community, neighbourhood wardens, neighbourhood watch schemes and residents associations. All must play their part. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire used the word "partnership", but he talked about privatising the police without recognising that my constituents need that partnership in order to police our estates. I welcome a Government who turn their back on paternalism and a top-down approach to crime. The input must also come from the bottom up.
There is no suggestion that security guards will act as a quasi police force. They will not be given powers of arrest that are any different from those available to the general public. I dare say that people who criticise proposals for neighbourhood wardens do not live on estates with repeated vandalism and aggression, which is often perpetrated by a small minority. A partnership approach is essential. The Bill has a role in the wider issue of crime prevention.

Jackie Ballard: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about partnerships and policing to create safer communities. However, does he not understand that there is a fundamental difference between paid-for private security operatives who are brought into a community and community-based volunteer neighbourhood watch schemes? They are completely different.

Mr. Lammy: The hon. Lady seems to suggest that paid-for private operatives have existed only for the past year. Estates in different parts of the country have for a number of years used private security firms to manage affairs in their buildings. Local authorities, including mine, have employed private companies to do that. If there is proper scrutiny, that sector has a role in working alongside the police and ordinary people in neighbourhoods that are worried about crime.
In my road in Tottenham, the neighbourhood watch scheme works closely with security people on the nearby estate and the police to ensure that our homes are no longer burgled. The number of burglaries is decreasing because of the partnership between the residents in the neighbourhood watch scheme, security on the estate at the top of the road and the police half a mile down the road in their local station. The use of private security firms has not come about in the past year; the arrangement has been in place for some time and the Government seek to cement it.
On wheelclamping, I should say that I do not drive. I believe that I am in good company in this place—my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) are Londoners who also do not drive. I have therefore not been a victim of overzealous clampers, but I rely on other people and friends to drive me. I have been horrified to see friends, many of whom are on low incomes, charged a stack load of money—usually £200-plus—to get their cars back. It is difficult for them to retrieve their cars or get the clamps removed. I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) about the need for greater involvement of local authorities in that exercise. I hope that the Government will consider that further.
I hope also that the Government will consider the position of local authorities that contract out services to private companies and then find that they are not reliable

or as good at the job as they had expected. A constituent of mine, who had saved for a long time to go on holiday, returned to find that her car, which had been deemed by the private contractor to have been vandalised, had been towed away. Ultimately, it was revealed that wheelclampers had damaged the car, and the outcome was that my constituent was awarded some compensation. I hope that local authorities who contract out services will come under the auspices of the Bill, although I suspect that they do not. The matter needs closer attention.
I welcome the Bill. It will make my constituents very happy because it will help to prevent crime and foster the partnerships that are needed in areas such as mine. In addition, many ethnic minority people are employed in the sector, and they need the security of knowing that they are not joining organisations that employ criminals and that they are recognised by the Government as a professional body of people, with all the rights and obligations that come with that status.

Mr. Adrian Bailey: I welcome the Bill, which addresses a number of problems in my constituency and in the neighbouring black country area which have been made known to me. I pay tribute to my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who, as other Members have said, has done considerable research on this subject and is recognised as an authority on it. He has fought a long and lonely battle for the licensing of security operatives. I believe that he wants to contribute to the debate and I look forward to his comments with interest.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) rather sidetracked the House on policing. If, in their years in power and their subsequent years in opposition, Conservative Members had been as concerned about the security industry as they had been about the police, we might have had an even better record on crime prevention than this Government have managed so far. During their 18 years in power, the Conservatives showed little inclination to tackle security issues, which I know are of considerable significance to the public.
We must be clear that the industry is in many ways complementary to the police and law enforcement. I thought that the industry employed 300,000 people, but it was said earlier that the estimated figure is now 350,000. Many of those people are very underpaid, work extremely long hours and receive poor training. The Government have already tackled the first issue with the minimum wage, which will shortly go up to £4.20 an hour, but there remains a tranche of issues that are addressed in the Bill and on which action is long overdue.
Given that combination of adverse circumstances, it is not surprising that staff turnover in the industry is enormous. Consequently, any training that is given is of little benefit to the industry as a whole. In many areas, security work is regarded as not only low in pay but low in status, and it is unattractive to potential employees. That is ironic when one considers that given the industry's vital role in preventing crime, the level of responsibility is completely unrecognised and inconsistent with the prevailing pay rates, public status and training.
It is hardly surprising that security work is in many ways regarded as a potential employment opportunity for crooks. I make it clear that I am all in favour of the


rehabilitation of offenders. We want ex-criminals to go into full-time, rewarding employment and to contribute to society. However, I am highly suspicious when people with a track record of abusing the law suddenly demonstrate a totally uncharacteristic enthusiasm for applying for positions that involve upholding the law. In reality, the inside knowledge that many security operatives have when working for companies offers opportunities for rewards that are far greater than those to be gained by any honest employment.
The most conspicuous example that I have come across occurred in my constituency a few years ago, when an ex-criminal got a job as a security guard and was then made a supervisor in the same company. Unfortunately, he had been imprisoned following the murder by strangulation of a young woman in front of her child. Earlier, he had beaten up an old lady who subsequently died in hospital. In case any Conservative Members try to intervene, I might add that his release from jail took place under the previous Government.
The company had employed that man without knowledge of his history. Not surprisingly, when it was exposed the company went bust. One can only imagine the horror felt by other employees following the revelation of the criminal past of the man who had been supervising them as well as dealing with others as part of his work. That underlines the need for change. Under existing legislation, there is no access to criminal records. Happily, the Bill will change that, and it is about time too.
The issue of door supervisors is also of enormous significance in my constituency. We have heard talk about the importance of partnership arrangements between the police, licensees and the security industry in enforcing law and order in that context. I can advocate the benefits of good working partnership practices at local level. I can see those benefits even within my own family because I have an 18-year-old stepson who at weekends likes to go with his mates to a nightclub in West Bromwich, where they enjoy themselves dancing the night away.
When asked why he chose a nightclub in West Bromwich rather than one in a neighbouring police command unit and local authority, my stepson replied that he and his friends went to West Bromwich because they knew that if there was trouble in that nightclub, the bouncers would apprehend the troublemakers and keep hold of them until the local police arrived, arrested them and took them away, whereas troublemakers apprehended inside nightclubs in other areas tended to be thrown out on to the street, where they could continue to fight and engage in fisticuffs with any passers-by who caught their eye. That is a clear example of a company with a good working partnership with the police, benefiting not only the company's clientele, but the neighbourhood and the police. The Bill is designed to facilitate such partnerships.
A concern I share with other hon. Members focuses on the role of bouncers in drug peddling. I especially welcome the provisions that deal with the licensing of doormen and provide for the banning of those with inappropriate criminal convictions. My local police superintendent assures me that where drug problems exist in our area—happily, there are worse parts of the country for drug problems than West Bromwich—they are often

directly related to door operatives who use the atmosphere generated by alcohol, music or peer group pressure among young people to peddle drugs.

Mr. Hawkins: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I entirely agree with him about the activities of doormen, but does he not feel somewhat embarrassed that, only about a month ago, in the Committee on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, he allowed himself to be persuaded by his Whips to vote down a Conservative amendment that would have introduced into that Bill provisions that were designed precisely to stop drug dealing by bouncers on nightclub doors?

Mr. Bailey: I am confident that the measures taken by the Government to curb drug dealing mark a considerable improvement on those taken by the previous Government and that they are likely to be more effective. It takes some nerve for a member of a party that had 18 years in government to pass such legislation to talk about embarrassment now.
Much has been said in the debate about wheelclamping, and some of the tales related by other Members make my personal experience pale by comparison. None the less, I shall spend a few minutes describing an experience of friends of mine and exploring the issues that arise from it, which I hope will be addressed by the code of practice for wheelclampers under the Bill.
Two friends of mine—highly respectable, law-abiding school teachers—went on a bank holiday Monday to drop off their daughter at a bus station in the centre of Birmingham. Unable to find a public car park, they saw what they thought was a private car park with no vehicles in it and parked their car there while they saw their daughter off. They returned within 15 minutes to find a white van, a wheelclamp on their car, and two very large and intimidating males demanding £85 for the release of their car. They did not have £85 on them and they were told that a cheque would not suffice, so they had to find a bank cashpoint. It should be borne in mind that that can present difficulties on a bank holiday: not only are banks not open, but sometimes the cash machines run out of cash. Had my friends not been fit, able-bodied people, obtaining that £85 to secure their car's release would have presented considerable difficulties. Afterwards, they described their emotions as suppressed anger, fear and fury at the fact that people could behave in such a manner.
Compared with one or two of the cases about which I have heard today, my friends' experience was not too bad. None the less, their case raises a range of issues that I hope the Bill will address. First, it is obvious that wheelclamping companies must be registered and the areas in which they operate clearly identified. Secondly, there should be a locally determined scale of fines that are considered acceptable and support the logic of the local neighbourhood parking scheme. Thirdly, people who transgress and have their car clamped should have the right to pay in a way that does not compromise their personal safety. Fourthly, they should be given a receipt bearing the company name. Finally, if they are not satisfied with their treatment, there should be a mechanism whereby they can make a formal complaint.
I note that the Bill allows considerable flexibility—some have criticised that—regarding the power given to the Secretary of State and the Security Industry Authority.


There are many areas in which the Bill lays down no prescriptions, but instead leaves the matters for later prescription. I welcome the Minister's comment that the operation of the legislation will be continuously reviewed with a view to improving aspects that are not felt to be working appropriately. I should like to single out one such aspect: the inspectorate.
If we are to develop an effective licensing process, the inspectorate must carry out its job with appropriate sensitivity. The existing regime of inspectors has been too close to those elements within the security industry that have opposed the regulation of their industry. When the Bill is passed, a new inspectorate must be established with inspectors recruited who are appropriately qualified and directly accountable to the Security Industry Authority.
I conclude with one caveat: we look to the Minister and the authority continuously to review the process, make amendments where necessary and fill in gaps left by the basic legislation. None the less, we welcome the Bill. A properly regulated security industry will enhance the status of the profession, reassure the public and be of enormous benefit in the fight against crime. I am proud that it is a Labour Government who have, at last, acted.

Mr. Bruce George: First, I must apologise for my sudden absence from the Chamber, which was not due to a lack of enthusiasm. As Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, I was meeting the Secretary of State for Defence in what may be our very last meeting. I am afraid that the task of juggling two of my major interests in this place could be done only by listening to half of the Minister's speech, rattling through the Defence Committee in an hour and a half—the speediest session we have ever had, despite the complexity and sensitivity of European defence and security—and returning to listen to my colleagues.
I shall save my colleagues from a speech of Brezhnevian proportions, although I could give one. The introduction of the Bill in the Commons makes today memorable. It is perhaps a little premature to express the aspiration that the Bill will soon become law, given the complex political situation that we are in, but we may be close to seeing legislation. I heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), in which he said that he had been a security guard. I was almost a security guard; I introduced my first private Member's Bill in 1977, and sought to show how simple it was to get a job in a security firm. I went to Iver in Buckinghamshire and was asked some penetrating questions by the managing director of the firm, such as "Are you frightened of the dark?", "Can you read?", and "How quickly can you start?" He asked for names of people whom he could contact. I gave the name of my father and my then secretary, neither of whom were approached. Bingo! I was offered the job, as long as the company could get a uniform large enough to fit me, which was probably its biggest task.
It was and is simple to get a job with a security company. When I asked the managing director what training I would get, he almost fell off his chair laughing because there was none. In many ways, our debate is 25 years late. The security industry should have had the

intelligence—the self-interest even—to realise that going up the blind alley of self-regulation would be a disaster. It chose that course, in collusion with the previous Government, because it fitted in with the Conservatives' anti-bureaucratic activities and their alleged hostility to regulation. Apparently, when the former Deputy Prime Minister was approached to support regulation, he refused, as he was in the business of deregulating, not regulating.
Most other countries in—dare I say it—the advanced world regulate private security and, indeed, are in their third generation of legislation. Having learned the lessons of the past 25 to 30 years, at long last we are doing what others have done. I would have liked more evidence of experience derived from many of those countries, but the Bill is curiously British and suffers as a result. This is an important day both for me and the private security industry, which, at last, is on the verge of a major breakthrough. Along with other factors that I shall mention later, the Bill will provide it, its employees and those who hire security with a very different type of private security industry, which is more professional, competent, accountable and acceptable to the police and the population as the whole.
Perhaps the industry will rue the day when it saw me as the enemy of the private security industry. The position is quite the reverse: with others, including the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—who led the way in the House by introducing an early private Member's Bill in 1973—I made helpful suggestions, but I am afraid that the security industry chose to ignore them.
In my home, I have a plaque that says:
To Bruce George, in appreciation of his dedication to the task of regulating the private security industry.
That plaque has been hanging on a wall in my house since 1978. When my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said that he was the youngest Member of the House, I was tempted to say, "I was almost the youngest Member of the House when I first took an interest in the private security industry." One should not draw too many conclusions about the ageing process, but I have waited a long time. A good friend of mine, Peter Heims, once asked at a public meeting whether I was another flash in the pan; he asked whether I was another Member of Parliament getting quick publicity from introducing a ten-minute Bill, then disappearing. Well, Peter Heims, I proved not to be a flash in the pan.
The security industry is enormous, and the number of people it employs goes up almost daily. It has been said that it employs 350,000 people, but I can argue with some justification that it employs even more than that. It depends on how one defines private security. If one defines it in its broadest sense, I am certain that the figure is much higher than 350,000, dwarfing the Home Office and non-Home Office police forces.
The industry comprises manned guarding, both contract and in-house; cash in transit; private investigators, who come in many guises; security consultants; close protection; VIP protection; bodyguards; door supervisors or bouncers; private sector detention services; and manufacturers, designers, installers and maintainers of alarms, locks, safes and security equipment. That equipment includes safes, vaults and security containers; satellite tracking; closed circuit television and other electronic monitoring devices or surveillance equipment;


intrusion detection; access control; bomb protection; fire detection; metal detection; X-ray detection; telephone security equipment; computer security; security storage; security shredding; barriers, shutters, fences and security glass. The industry also comprises staff at places of entertainment, such as pop concerts—the list goes on indefinitely.
There are also products and services on the margins of private security, such as those in employment agencies that specialise in private security; credit check agencies; porters; receptionists; risk managers; museum curators; park rangers; computer operating staff; caretakers in colleges, schools and universities; car park attendants, who have a security function; managers; gamekeepers; and hospital porters. I could go on.
The industry is extremely large and, for a long time, it has been subject to public criticism. It is not a new industry; it goes back three or four millennia. There were locksmiths in the ancient world, as well as bodyguards, watchmen and craftsmen making security grilles.
According to modern detective writers such as Ellis Peters and Lindsey Davis, most monks were engaged in private investigation in one form or another.
Some people believe that the private security industry is a new industry that has supplanted the police. I shall not bore the House with historical evidence, but for most of the past 1,000 years policing and security work has been done by private individuals, groups engaged in self-protection, vigilantes, posses and amateur constables who usually transferred their responsibilities to others by paying them a fee. The role of the state was very limited. There was no police force in modern guise until the beginning of the 19th century. The process of creating the Peel police—the new police—took place over half a century.
The private security industry that existed previously was not expunged by the emergence of the police—the private security sector increased, along with the growth of the police. In many ways, nothing much has changed. Policing and security have been the responsibility of the state, but not exclusively. Neither the industry nor its relationship with the police is new, but that relationship will be on a much better footing after the passage of the Bill.
The modern contract security industry dates from Allan Pinkerton in the United States and the corps of commissionaires in the 1850s. Although the private security industry in its modern form began in Germany, Austria, the United States and Scandinavia, it developed in the United Kingdom only 50 years later. When it did develop, it was subject to enormous criticism and was alleged to be a private army. The idea of the massed ranks of Securicor or Group 4 marching down Whitehall to capture the seat of government stretches the imagination, but in the 1960s and 1970s there was a fear that a group of self-interested organisations was threatening the security of the state.
The image in the 1960s and 1970s, which has persisted, was of an industry with low pay poor efficiency, an enormous turnover of staff and low public esteem. The industry was seen as disreputable. It was the object of contempt and derision and the butt of endless jokes. I and others tried hard, working alongside, the more far-sighted members of the security industry, to put it on a different footing, but the attitude of the industry and the Government ranged from indifferent to hostile.
The Government post-1979 were decidedly unhelpful. In 1991 the Home Office produced a document that stated:
Inevitably, users of the industry get what they pay for. The Government considers that issues such as training and wages are fundamentally matters for the industry and its customers. It is ultimately for users to ensure that the company they choose is competent and reliable.
I am afraid that that was not the case.
There were several milestones in the progress towards regulation. Eventually, the Select Committee on Home Affairs took an interest in 1995 and produced an excellent report. A document written by the chief constable of north Wales was leaked. There were parliamentary debates. There were those in the industry who struggled hard to swim against the tide. Now we are at the point of regulation.
I am delighted that in 1997 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced to the British Security Industry Association that regulation was to be introduced. A consultation paper was issued in 1999 and the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords. Sadly, it reached the House of Lords first, but I suppose that that was the decision of the business managers, who had a great deal of legislation to cram into a limited parliamentary timetable.
Many have asked why private security is necessary, and whether it undermines the police. The exponential growth in private security was deliberately fostered by Lady Thatcher for the same reasons as were attributed to the present Government by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). Lady Thatcher wanted more people engaged in protection in support of the police. Many of the functions performed by the police as a monopoly for a century were taken away from them.
I believe that that was the right decision, although the police did not always like it. The private security industry is the best job creation scheme yet devised for retired military personnel and retired police officers at any level. Although they might whinge about it when they are serving officers or members of the Police Federation, their hostility sometimes changes to enthusiasm when they realise that there is life after leaving the police force. The Police Federation and the police force recognise that a properly regulated private security industry is not a threat, but a complement to the police force.
There is enough crime to go around; one should not try to hog it all. One should try to transfer many of the responsibilities at present held by the police to the private sector, as long as that does not compromise the primacy of the Home Department police forces. Now that the security industry is about to be legitimised by legislation, I expect that the police and the public need have no fears that they are handing over to the private sector tasks for which it is singularly incompetent.
When I was in Sweden a couple of years ago, I was told that the private sector was guarding the king's sons and nuclear establishments. At that time, the idea of some British private security company having bestowed on it tasks for which it was clearly ill-equipped would have been so laughable as to be almost criminal. I recall that the Select Committee on Defence—we took more interest in private security than did the Home Affairs Committee—regularly said that the Ministry of Defence should not give any further contracts to private security unless the industry was regulated. We are approaching a


period in which the rules of policing and security will have changed while new regulation is being properly implemented. I suspect that most people will say that those changes are for the better.

Mr. John Hayes: I am most interested in the case that the right hon. Gentleman makes, with which I am broadly sympathetic. Will he comment on the interface between the police and the public? One of the problems with policing is that people see fewer and fewer policemen and do not have enough non-adversarial contact with them. The Bill will have a strong impact on the police time that is available to deal with the public directly and to develop that relationship in order to build the trust between the public and the police that we all want.

Mr. George: A report published some time ago by the Police Foundation and Policy Studies Institute made the radical suggestion that the police should give up their basic patrolling functions to the private sector. It argued that that would allow them to concentrate on the detection of murder, rape and so on. It would have been a mistake to implement such a proposal, however, as the strength of our police must lie in their umbilical link with the public.
Under the previous and current Governments, the private sector has been increasingly present in public places. In some cases, it is even patrolling them. My late father was a copper for 29 years. During the last 15 years of his tenure in the Glamorgan constabulary, he was paid by the National Coal Board. That is a 1960s practice that could almost be called the privatisation of policing. My father had patrol duties and eventually became head of security of the Coal Board in Wales. I might add that he would not have much to do in that job if he were alive today. His salary as a policeman was paid by the Coal Board to Glamorgan, which then paid it to him. It is wrong, therefore, to suggest that the public-private relationship has changed only recently, although far more such practices now exist.
The police must have more presence on the street, even though everyone says that that is a less efficient form of policing. Thanks to the Home Office under the current and previous Governments, there is now magnificent funding for closed circuit television. I hope that a couple more of the bids that have been made in my constituency will be successful. Monitoring is carried out through closed circuit television cameras that were produced by the private sector, but paid for by the Government. The cameras are providing eyes and ears for the private sector to enable it to work with the police.
Community wardens will soon be walking around instead of policemen. People will be happy to see a uniform, even though it might not be the one that they want to see. If community wardens can communicate swiftly with the police, they will be a sort of municipal security guard on the beat, even if they cannot be bobbies on the beat. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 ensures that local authorities have more policing and security functions, so it takes a change of mindset to realise that the days are gone in which the coppers in blue uniforms and funny hats were dominant, although that is not necessarily for the worse.

Mr. Hayes: I entirely accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. Those days may be gone, but they have

gone for good practical reasons. He is right to draw attention to partnership, however, because if the police were to withdraw completely from such roles, it would be injurious to the relationship that I described in my previous intervention. There is a need for a balance of partnership. Finally, he may be very lucky with closed circuit television, but the Government have turned down Spalding's bid for CCTV—a disgraceful decision that provides no comfort for people in my constituency. [Interruption.] Instead of chuntering on the Front Bench, the Minister should take some responsibility for the matter, as he is not very popular in Spalding at the moment.

Mr. George: My hon. Friend the Minister is popular in other areas. I suspect that crime in many inner urban areas is excessive even by rural standards.
Many things are changing for the better. We now have a partnership that will have an enormous effect on crime prevention and detection. There is very little that the private sector cannot do. Most of the functions of which the police are capable of performing can and are being performed by the private sector. As public forensic laboratories are overstretched, much forensic work is being farmed out to private laboratories. More investigators are probably attached to central Government Departments and to the private sector than to the police force. Technology has monopolised the private sector's expansion. It does not want police powers, as it does not want to be seen to be seeking to usurp the police. However, intelligent members of the police force, such as John Stevens, the Commissioner, and officers in my area, recognise that a new relationship must be forged.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I revert to the valid point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) made. If we allow our private security industry to play too great a role in policing domestic estates, is there not a danger of creating a two-tier justice system comprising those who can afford to employ such firms and those who cannot? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the differences between the powers of the police, who can arrest on suspicion, and those of private security firms, which can make only a citizen's arrest?

Mr. George: That will remain the case. I hope that Home Office funding will increase and that the accusation that only those who live in expensive areas can afford private security will thus disappear. In my constituency, the likelihood of imposing a levy on householders to pay for enhanced security is small. However, I recognise, as do the intelligent sectors of the private security industry, that community wardens do not want to be perceived as the protectors only of those who have the fattest wallets.
The private security industry has grown throughout the world for roughly the same reasons: increasing experience of crime and the fear of it. I visited Finland, which has a thriving security industry but hardly any crime. I asked where the perception of crime originated; it came not from Finland but from watching "Starsky and Hutch" and "The Bill". Such programmes give the private security industry a fillip. American and British television gave the Finns a greater fear of crime than reality dictated.
Private security has grown because it is a good industry to enter for people who want to make a profit. The increase in terrorism and environmental protest,


the demands of insurance companies, the Government's commitment to privatisation, Governments' failures adequately to fund the police, the growth of mass ownership of property that is "worth nicking", the role of advertising, changes in technology and the deregulated nature of the market are all contributory factors.
Let us consider good legislation. My former assistant and I have studied more than 100 measures from around the world. We devised a method of comparing different regulatory regimes, and we placed them in the following categories: non-interventionist, which pertains in this country; minimum narrow; minimum wide; comprehensive narrow and comprehensive wide. I shall not bore hon. Members with details, but I believe that the best category is broad. A broad regulatory system covers all the sectors of the private security industry.
I do not support a shallow system of regulation, which means only access to criminal records. I want the Bill to establish broad and deep regulation. I am in favour of heavier regulation; Conservative Members may not agree.

Mr. Bercow: I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech with interest and respect, but given the length of time for which he has campaigned for a statutory regulation system, does he not agree that it should be visible, explicit and clear? Does that not lead him to be mildly suspicious of, if not unhappy about, the Bill's scope for secondary legislation? Would it not help if as much as possible were incorporated in the measure?

Mr. George: I shall deal with that point shortly. Before the hon. Gentleman gets too excited about my response, I emphasise that I would have loved to be subcontracted by the Minister to draft the Bill. I have drafted four measures, all of which—especially the first—were at least as good as the one that we are considering this evening. However, the four attempts that I made all met with miserable rejection by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who were in government at the time.
I would like to have seen a more comprehensive Bill that filled in the gaps and met the criteria that I believe are critical. There is a problem with the Bill, as I have said clearly to the Minister, whom I deeply respect and admire. I am not saying that in an attempt to influence him—well, yes, I am. Forgive my earlier remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I apologise fat lying to the House.
I am not quite certain what we are voting for. We shall be supporting a Bill that is quite exciting, because we do not know exactly what is in it. Even if the Bill is not as detailed as I would like, there is a great deal in it that offers the opportunity to deliver what I want to see. There is great flexibility in its provisions. However, that same Bill is capable of delivering a form of regulation that will be only marginally superior to what we have now. My dilemma is that, because we could be only weeks from a general election and days from the prorogation of Parliament, I, or anyone else with an interest in the subject, will hardly have ample time to table an enormous number of amendments or to consider them effectively.
I hope that the very thing that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) thinks is a weakness in the Bill might be to its advantage. The Minister can see the near unanimity not only in the House but in the security industry, which is delighted that the Bill is being introduced, but it does not go far enough. There have been

few cases in the recent history of legislation of an industry begging the Government to dump more responsibilities on it. There are those who say, "Ah, but we don't want to burden industry." In my view, the security industry is quite prepared to have additional costs imposed on it, if the legislation will do the trick. I therefore look forward, in the next few weeks or days, to seeing a little more detail of what the Minister intends to do.
I recall that, when I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs five years ago, the then Chairman, Sir Ivan Lawrence, said, "Aren't you, Mr. George, rather too heavy in your model of regulation? Don't you prefer the lighter touch, the model of regulation that is not heavy? What do you think about Oftel, Ofwat and Ofgas? Why not Of-sec-ind?" I said, "Mr. Chairman, my reply to you would certainly contain the word "off"." I was not, therefore, at all enthusiastic about the light model of regulation.

Mr. Bercow: It is the sophistication that takes one aback.

Mr. George: Indeed. Sir Ivan Lawrence could see what I was getting at, because he had defended and prosecuted many people with a wide, or, indeed, a narrow vocabulary, including the Kray twins—a case that I was delighted he lost miserably.
It is important that the legislation should do the trick, and in many ways it does. The fact that it exists is a step forward. It will establish greater accountability. At the moment, who has heard of the British Security Industry Association, unless they belong to it? Not many companies do, out of the totality. To whom does one complain if one's burglar alarm turns out to be duff? To whom does one complain if the private investigator whom one hires does not find the person he is looking for—and does not even try—but charges a vast amount for doing nothing?
The regulatory authority will represent consumers, trade unions and employers, large and small, and I hope that it has a chairman who is genuinely independent of the industry. The Bill will lead to greater efficiency, greater accountability and greater transparency, so I do not want my criticisms to be considered as outweighing the positive elements.
The Bill will deal more effectively with crooks. How much longer can the industry tolerate being considered to be the repository of crooked coppers who set up private security companies after being thrown out of the Met or West Midlands police? How long can it endure people"s taunts? I recall watching Inspector Frost discuss with his sergeant the culprit for a series of rapes. Suspicion turned to two security guards in a nearby factory. The sergeant said to Frost, "Those guys over there—have they got form?" Frost replied, "Course they have. They"re security guards, aren't they?"
Such perceptions are partly the fault of the private security industry, because it has taken that route and not got close to the Government. Nor has there been legal access to criminal records. I know of endless examples of crimes being committed, but the Bill has a wider aim. I would not want the Government to think that the Bill's main purpose is to deal with crime, and I am sure that they do not—it is more to do with efficiency, accountability and professionalism, which is singularly lacking in many sectors of the industry.
The hon. Member for Buckingham tried to get me to criticise the Government; well, I shall make some criticisms. The Bill's prime weakness is its lack of width—it is focused too closely on manned guarding. As I said early in my speech, a vast sector of the private security industry is, for the moment, outside the scope of regulation. If one enters a major City bank, however, one can consider the security industry's penetration of such a building. There is closed circuit television, access control, security shredding and security lighting. It will have been designed by an architect specialising in security, and computer security is also involved. Every aspect of private security is there, but the only people who will be regulated are the two guys on the door, and they will not be regulated if they are in-house employees. It would be better to call this the "part of the private security industry" Bill.
Ample scope has been built into the Bill to allow the Security Industry Authority and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to enlarge the focus. Although that is right, I do not like the way in which it has been done, as the regulatory authority could not cope with 350,000 people suddenly appearing before it to demand approval to operate. Perhaps it is right to deal with manned guarding and bouncers subcontracted to local authorities first, after which we can regulate the other sectors. I hope that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister tell us how much of the security industry will be regulated, because it genuinely wants regulation.
My next major concern—the exclusion of in-house security operatives—is linked to the previous one. Initially, in-house operatives were in the consultative paper, then they were out. Who nobbled the Home Office? As the press say, step forward the better regulation taskforce and those members of the security industry who are recidivist opposers of reform. In my view, they clearly nobbled members of the better regulation taskforce, who then put the screws on whoever advised the Minister. Out went in-house security, because, somehow, regulation would impose too many burdens on it: cobblers—absolute cobblers. I am not certain whether that word is acceptable in this permissive age, but the first one that came to mind would have had to be withdrawn.

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. George: May I continue for just one sentence? I am sorry, but as I have waited for 25 years, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to be indulgent. After all, I will not have a chance to speak in the Standing Committee if one is not established.
Let us consider the example of a factory whose security arrangements are a mixture of private and contract. Part of its security force is subject to regulation and standards, while the rest is not. Let us imagine a shopping mall in which some shops are guarded by in-house personnel, while others are guarded by contract personnel. The security staff will all wear the same sort of uniforms, and the register may state who is licensed and who is not; nevertheless, the system is nonsensical.
I promise to give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham in a moment, but there is another big problem. There are some excellent security companies in

this country—world-class companies—but we have more rubbish companies than almost any other country, and they will find smart lawyers. A company hiring staff will say, "Why should we go to a contract security firm? It will have education and training standards, which will cost us. All the guards will now have to apply for licences, and that cost will be passed on to us. We do not want all the problems associated with improved standards; we will hire in-house staff."
That company—unless it is a good company—will say, "We will not train those staff. We will not pay them more than the minimum wage. We will duck and dive to do the minimum that will ensure that our insurance company is prepared to accept what we are doing." Alternatively, it may find a crooked private security company which, by some legal dodge, can masquerade as in-house security. I think that providing for in-house personnel not to have to be licensed defeats the Bill's objectives.
Now I give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham.

Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has nothing for which to apologise: I am listening to his speech with rapt attention, and my appetite for it is insatiable. I hope, however, that he will tell us—on the strength of his experience and knowledge, which I respect—something about what happens in other European Union countries. I mentioned this in an earlier intervention on the Minister.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about the trends, in terms of the incidence of crime, in the private security industries of EU member states where there are statutory regulation systems, and also something about the costs of some of those systems?

Mr. George: The costs of a proper regulatory system are by no means excessive. Good companies such as Group 4, Securicor and Securitas, which is a Swedish firm now operating in the UK, work in regulated environments, and very profitably.
If I were asked, "Who is the biggest villain of the piece? Is it the Home Office, is it the private security industry, or is it someone else?", I would say, "If I must identify a single cause of the malaise in the industry, it is this: the public who hire want good security without being prepared to pay for it." In a properly regulated private security industry, men and women will not undergo the ridiculous two-day period of training with no examination and one day of on-the-job training that currently passes for proper training in this country.
Companies should pay people a decent wage. They should not necessarily recruit from the bottom of the employment pile, because they will generally get what they pay for. They should provide proper facilities, proper communications and decent uniforms. They should encourage the men and women whom they employ to feel a sense of pride in belonging to the security industry, rather than feeling embarrassed to admit that they are door supervisors, burglar alarm installers or security guards. It will cost—it will really cost—but we are demonstrating the price to be paid by those who do not pay a decent price. The price that we are paying is a low-status industry that has high personnel turnover and does not work with the police, which perhaps contributes to increased crime.
I had long thought chat any legislation was better than no legislation, but I was wrong. With no legislation, we have at least the possibility of decent legislation being introduced eventually.
There is no federal responsibility for the issue in the United States, for example, but some states have very good regulatory systems. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Buckingham, but some of those states very definitely have a free-enterprise culture. Florida, which is not known for its great enthusiasm for central intervention, has one of the best regulatory systems that I have seen. It is an excellent system. I visited the regulatory authority in Orlando and its head office in Tallahassee and was enormously impressed. British Columbia, most of the other Canadian provinces and most of the Australian states also have excellent regulation.
I am delighted to say that, in the European Union, the French and the Germans are no better than we are on the issue. Undoubtedly the best regulatory systems in Europe are in Scandinavia, principally in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark. Spain also has an excellent regulatory system although it is a little too detailed. I really do not think that the design of women's tights should necessarily be the responsibility of the Interior Ministry and the subject of statutory instruments. That is going too far. I could willingly send the Minister diagrams of those instruments of torture. Russia also has an excellent regulatory system.
Currently, we are with Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and some countries in Africa and in Latin America in having no regulation whatsoever. I want us to create the type of system that I have seen in numerous other countries. When people see security guards in the United Kingdom, I want them to say, "They look almost as good as police. They are paid almost as well as police. They are alert, helpful and professional. Just look at how they are dressed—clean shoes and nice uniforms. They are proud of their job."
Conversely, in the 1970s, in Wolverhampton, a firm called Shield used to recruit by going round the Salvation Army on Fridays and Saturdays. It found the down-and-outs and offered them a weekend's kip in a private security guard's uniform. It would take them to a site at 8 pm on a Friday and pick them up again at 8 am on a Monday. Not many companies operate like that now, thank goodness, but too many still do.
I have described my vision, which may sound a bit apocalyptic, of how the industry should operate, and I can genuinely see the way forward. We now have a minimum wage and stipulations on how companies should operate, some of which are based on European initiatives. Technological growth will force many companies to choose between employing better technology or more people. As labour becomes ever more expensive, the greater the pressure will be on those companies to strike a balance in how they operate. I can certainly see the industry evolving into something that is very different from what it is today.
I should like other provisions to be included in legislation. Intruder alarm designers and installers, for example, should be covered by legislation. Some dreadful companies are operating in that sector. Although there is not the same incidence of crime among those who install intruder alarms, I believe that, for the sake of efficiency, the sector should be regulated.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: A moment ago, in his excellent speech, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for the public to be reassured by private security guards. I am

sure that he will know the Bill backwards. I am wondering whether the public have any way of distinguishing security guards who are licensed under the Bill from those who are not. Paragraph 2 of schedule 2 deals with the duties of manned guarding. However, none of the six sub-paragraphs in that paragraph deals in any way with the issue of identification. Does he think that it would be a good idea if security guards employed by firms that are licensed under the Bill had somewhere on their uniform an insignia showing that they are so licensed?

Mr. George: My private Member's Bills in 1977, 1984, 1987 and 1994 offered models for regulation. They addressed that problem, but I suspect that the Home Office believes that primary legislation does not need to go into such minute detail. My Spanish friends can describe exactly the size, weight and shape of a badge, but it is more important to strengthen existing legislation to ensure that no uniform can be confused with that of other, public, services.
It is very important that staff wear a badge that can be easily seen, and readily inspected by any appointed person. I am worried that the regulated sector will be given different privileges from the non-regulated sector. How will people distinguish between security guards who are in-house and unregulated and those who are regulated and under contract?
The better regulation task force looked into fit-person criteria and produced a scintillating piece of nonsense. I mean no disrespect to plumbers and cleaners, but to compare their roles with those of alarm installers and locksmiths displays a degree of unreality. It is necessary to regulate the people who set up security apparatus in other people's homes. Why should home owners not know that those people have been well trained and that they have not just come out of the slammer? Their job is not comparable to a plumber's, who is entrusted with a different set of tasks.
A further criticism—or suggestion—that I would offer has to do with a matter on which the Bill remains flexible. The Bill, rightly, will require individuals to be licensed, but it proposes only a voluntary code for companies. There is ample precedent in other industries—such as financial services, gaming, gas supply, insurance, meat processing, telecommunications, television and radio broadcasting, water and aviation—of companies being subject to standards and having to prove certain matters to the licensing authority before being awarded a licence to operate.
In my Private Security (Registration) Bill of 1994, I went into some detail about what companies should be required to present by way of information. It specified that information should be given about the characters and backgrounds of directors and officers of the firm, and about their criminal records. It also specified information about the financial records of the firm, its directors and officers, and information about the character of the private security services that the firm proposed to provide. That 1994 Bill also specified that a proposed firm should have adequate insurance, and that its premises should be adequate.
The latter point is very important. My 1994 Bill said that a proposed private security firm should operate from premises considered to be "suitable for the purpose". In my model, a licence could not be given to a company


offering, say, a central monitoring station for the intruder alarm industry if that station is not strongly protected. That protection must be able to deter a person from taking over the premises and thus allowing burglar alarms to ring without response. I hope that companies will be subject to compulsory standards.
The part of the Bill devoted to training standards is an element that has the potential to be developed in a way that I would consider appropriate. However, the drafting leaves me with no idea whether that will happen. If the Minister has already covered that matter during my absence, I apologise—I shall check in Hansard tomorrow.
We could carry on with the present BSIA system of two days' formal training, plus one day on the job and no examination. However, I should much prefer the Home Secretary to issue stronger instructions—not mere guidelines—to the SIA to the effect that he does not want to maintain the current arrangements, which amount almost to an absence of training.
Perhaps the following account of training in other countries will scare some people. In Belgium, security officers receive 120 hours' training; within eight months they must pass a test. Additional specialist training of 40 hours for weapons is given—that will not apply to us—as well as 75 hours on the protection of people and 16 hours on guard dogs. Incidentally, I was invited to speak at a conference on guard dogs in Barking—the organisers did not know why I was helpless with laughter when they telephoned me.
In Belgium, an extra 65 hours' training is given for people who are responsible for cash in transit. Managers receive an extra 70 hours. Why not? Why should training be confined to the poor infantry? Why should not there be training for non-commissioned officers and the officer corps?
In Denmark, the training period is 120 hours; there is no examination. In Finland, it is 40 hours. In Germany, the situation is almost as bad as it is in this country. In the Netherlands, three weeks' basic training is required, with additional training leading to a basic security diploma that must be passed within 12 months. In Spain, 200 hours of training is set and supervised by the police, and an examination must be passed. Thereafter, training of 75 hours a year is required. In Sweden, security officers need 217 hours of training before they are accredited. The mother of all security training schemes operates in Hungary, where 350 hours are imposed. In a British university, that would probably lead to the award of a master's degree.

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what assessment he has made of the merits of the Security Industry Training Organisation? It was founded about 10 years ago and is known for its independence. It operates not only in this country but internationally. Can he also offer the House a pearl of wisdom on the merits of ISO 9000 and of the proportion of private security industry operators in this country who conform to it?

Mr. George: I suspect that most of them have never heard of it. In the absence of standards set by the Government, the many privately established standards—

on the ISO model—are better than nothing. I should like a system such as that proposed in my Bill, which stated that:
The Council shall make rules specifying the training to be received by all private security agents, which may include … a basic training course …a minimum period of pre-assignment training … refresher training … further training, including management training; and … professional qualifications approved by the Council.
The Council may recognise as satisfactory and efficient training programmes, including training programmes established by or under the auspices of registered firms or associations of registered firms or persons engaged in the private security industry.
The Secretary of State may designate as efficient such courses, offered by academic institutions, which appear to him to provide appropriate training, of to lead to appropriate qualifications, including National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ).
Things have moved on since then.
Each sector of the industry will have its own specific training requirements. Obviously, it will take longer to train a locksmith than a security guard, so I hope that the Home Office will instruct the SIA to work with the industry to lay down the standards for each sector.
They should be sufficiently challenging to ensure that the people who emerge from the training programme, at the end of an examination, can do the job.
I recall my assistant applying for a job with a reputable American company, now Swedish owned. The two-day training programme that he undertook had no examination at the end of it and was not part of the company's training programme. If he successfully completed the two-day training programme—that is, if he was still alive, had not expired and still wished to be a security guard—he would be offered a job. That is not the way to proceed.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is criticising the British Security Industry Association. I am sure that he is aware that the BSIA covers about 70 per cent. of the existing security operations in this country. It covers closed circuit television, access control, manned security, grilles, safes, secure transport, and alarm manufacture, distribution and installation. The association therefore covers a very wide field in its ISO 9000 qualification, and in that qualification it regularly works with representatives in Europe to ensure that its standards are compatible. Is he saying that he criticises the BSIA for those standards, or does he think that the Bill should build on them?

Mr. George: I have no objections to the BSIA as a trade association. My objections to the BSIA are limited to when it purports to be a regulatory authority, because I do not believe that a trade association should have undertaken the task of regulation.
As a result of criticism from people like me, the BSIA took its inspectorate out of its Worcester building and sent it 25 miles down the road. To my mind, that mileage did not separate its licensing authority—its inspectorate—from the industry.
There must be a proper inspectorate. I mentioned several countries with great legislation, but great legislation is a waste of time unless there is a decent inspectorate. One of the nonsenses in the House of Lords a couple of days ago was the statement that the inspectorate may inspect during reasonable hours only.


The time to catch people cheating is in unreasonable hours, and I do not know why the Under-Secretary, Lord Bassam, acquiesced in that nonsense.
The Security Industry Training Organisation, a very good organisation, may be part of the framework but must be extricated from its links with the BSIA. The inspectorate should use the expertise obtained in BSIA and its inspectorate, and in the National Approval Council for Security Systems—the intruder alarm inspectorate. Both those organisations are closely linked either to the security industry or to insurance.
I hope that the Minister, in his wisdom, will say that we need a strong inspectorate, that that inspectorate may take in people from the good existing inspectorates, wherever they may be, but that those people will be part of a Home Office inspectorate and it will not be a case of the Home Office subcontracting to an inspectorate closely linked to industry and telling it to get on with the job. The inspectorate and the legislation will seem compromised if it is seen that the big boys, who have obstructed regulation for 30 years, are to be the beneficiaries of something to which they objected so strongly.

Mr. Hayes: The Home Affairs Committee, in the report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, explicitly concluded that the current standards, particularly standards of training, in much of the private security industry were unsatisfactory and
below the level the public need and have a right to expect.
In the light of that, does he believe that the Bill goes far enough? I detect in his remarks an implication that he thinks that it does not.

Mr. George: The Bill as it stands is in part a mystery. It will depend on whom the Home Secretary appoints as chief executive, as chairman, and on who the members of the board are. I would not want them to be toadies directly responsible to the Home Secretary or the Minister of State, seeking permission from them before they blow their noses. Nor do I want the members of the board simply to come from the private security industry and from those companies that still object to regulation.
Can hon. Members believe that two large security companies would still love to see the Bill simply fade away? One of the crucial issues, therefore, is: who will be appointed to the board? I hope that the chairman will be not an establishment figure but an established figure, with a track record of impartiality, who does not come from the private security industry and is seen not as taking his or her orders from Worcester and the BSIA, but as basing the general framework of his or her operations on orders from the Home Office.
I hope that, in the days ahead, the Ministers of State will say, "We were a bit vague in the section on training. We will tell the SIA and its chief executive and chairman that the training must be serious." We do not want the current training to prevail; it must be more on the lines of that in Spain or Sweden, where the training is conducive to establishing a professional guard, not a half-trained or untrained guard.
Even if people with PhDs were instructed, it would be difficult to convey what is required. Spain has a good system that involves an examination, but the trainers will not even be regulated under the proposals. Proper training

is important, and the trainers must be able to convince the Home Secretary that they, too, are competent to be licensed.

Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned the auditing process and analysis involved in ISO 9000. Is it not the case that, in the typical circumstances that exist in most other industries, part of that process involves the accreditation and careful assessment of trainers to ensure that they do their job properly? If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that will not obtain under the Bill, it represents a glaring omission.

Mr. George: The ISO standards series is voluntary and the percentage of people who have adopted it is, regrettably, too low. I want the training and standards to be compulsory. Perhaps we can use the various rules or models laid down for security storage, cash in transit or central stations. That is a good basis on which to find out how other people think security companies should operate.
Having gained that expertise and having consulted the industry, the SIA will, I hope, draft its own standards. I hope that the SIA will tell those who want to provide guarding services that they must meet certain requirements, that their men and women must undertake certain training and that, if they cannot do so, they will not be given a licence.

Mr. Bercow: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the fact that the authority should not be a prisoner of the private security industry, but that, of course, does not mean that it is incapable of learning from and being inspired by it. I do not know whether he was meeting the Secretary of State for Defence at the time, but I wonder whether I can refer to the point that I made earlier. I hope that he will agree that the Secretary of State's discretion should be properly circumscribed so that it is not unfettered and so that he does not have the opportunity simply to throw baubles at people as a reward for loyal service in unrelated fields. Does he agree that the authority's composition should draw in the expertise of the industry, the police force and others in related sectors?

Mr. George: From conversations that I have had with Ministers, I am sure that they have that in mind. My Private Security (Registration) Bill stated:
The Council shall consist of twelve persons nominated by the Secretary of State … The Secretary of State in making nominations to the Council shall have due regard to the desirability of securing that the Council includes persons representative of or, as the case may be, who have experience of, armoured car and courier services, guard and patrol services, private investigation services, installers and manufacturers of locks, safes, alarms and other security equipment, the police service, the insurance industry, the consumer interest and the Home Department and of all parts of the United Kingdom.
I wanted a balance and, in fairness, I am satisfied that that will be achieved under the Bill. There will be sub-committees and sub-committees of sub-committees, and people who are not on the main board can serve on them. It is right that the private security industry is well represented, but that should not just mean the big boys and the major companies. The body should include members from the small and medium-sized companies—


the alarm installers and contract guards—but a significant number on the body should come from outside the industry.
Initially, I thought that there should be a balance between the two, but I now think that the majority should be made up of those from outside the industry. The chairman should also come from outside the industry and should not be linked to a private security company. That will ensure the legitimacy of—and the respect for the organisation.
I again offer my profuse apologies for the length of my speech, but with one book and three more on the way, 150 articles and hundreds and hundreds of meetings, mostly involving bashing my head against a brick wall, I know that the industry has a potential that has not been remotely realised. Regulation by itself will not be a panacea. The industry will still require ingenuity, good investment, good people and the use of universities and teaching courses in security. Regulation can, however, make a significant contribution despite the Bill's imperfections and omissions.
The hon. Member for Buckingham thinks that the Bill's timing is malevolent; as I said, it should have been introduced 25 years ago. Unless the general election is in November, there is no way the Bill will receive the proper scrutiny that amendments deserve. However, I hope that the Bill will receive its Second Reading and that Ministers will say that the permissive powers provide us with a clue as to what they have in mind. I hope that it is not the minimalist approach of hardly any training, or the maximalist approach either, because I would not want to destroy the security industry by imposing the idea that a guard should receive 150 hours training. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues will give us a greater clue as to what will be available.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is far more knowledgeable about the subject than me and many others, and I bow to his knowledge. This is a serious question, but given the political situation that we are in, does he advise that we should have a canter round the course now, but not seek to rush the Bill through before a possible early election? Or is it better to have the debate on Second Reading, benefit from the deliberations of the Lords and then return to the Bill in the early days of the next Parliament, whoever are in government? Liberal Democrats certainly make the commitment that we shall expedite its passage as long as it receives proper scrutiny in the next Parliament.

Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman missed most of my speech, but he has hit the bull's eye. In an ideal world, I hope that we would give the matter the adequate scrutiny that would allow a better Bill to emerge than the one that is before us.
The security industry faces the same choice as I do. After 1,000 years—or the 25 years I have wanted to do something about the issue—we have a Bill. Will we accept it with its imperfections, or will we say that it is not good enough and ask the Government to introduce a better Bill in the next Parliament? The latter is an

attractive option. However, most of us are realists. There is no guarantee that when the Prime Minister and his Cabinet decide on the legislative programme, they will say, "Ah well, old Bruce George was hoping there would be a new security B ill, so let's have one." I merely hope that the Bill is flexible enough to deal with most of the industry's anxieties and expectations.
I shall not rattle off the organisations and companies that have called for stronger legislation. I hope that the consultative process has made the Minister realise that the Bill is pitched at a level that is lower than the industry would accept. However, if he is able, without imposing outrageous costs and standards, to advise the chairman of the new authority about the parameters within which he wants him to operate in the short term, it will have been worth it. The Bill could almost be as good as the best legislation. However, if that opportunity is not taken and the Bill satisfies the better regulation taskforce and the minimalists, I will look back at the past few weeks with despair.

Mr. Hughes: I am seeking the right hon. Gentleman's advice as much as anything. If there is no chance to amend the Bill, is it worth having as it stands?

Mr. George: I was not here for half the Minister's speech, so I do not know what promises he gave. If he sets out how we are to proceed with training, which is not mentioned in the Bill, that will help. He said that the chairman will be independent, so I am satisfied on that count. I will be happy if he assures us that the Bill's flexibility will allow this Government and their successor to say to the new authority, "You don't have carte blanche. Parliament has supported the Bill and it wants something a little stronger."

Mr. Bercow: I do not wish to dampen or quell the right hon. Gentleman's optimism, but I have a constitutional point to make. He must be aware that no Government are in a position to bind their successors. No Minister of State, no matter how senior, important, respected, or influential, and no matter how full his diary is—as in the case of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)—is in a position to say what his successor would do. The right hon. Gentleman should not be bought off too easily.

Mr. George: People do not always proceed according to what is constitutionally available. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point, but l hope that the Home Secretary or the Minister will put some flesh on the Bill in a speech over the next week or two. I realise that whoever becomes Home Secretary or Minister of State may not be constitutionally bound to accept this Government's policies. Perhaps the Home Secretary will take over the role of Foreign Secretary and the Minister will deservedly be promoted to the Cabinet, perhaps as Minister of Defence. However, a word in the ear of the Minister of the day, with an offer that cannot be refused, would transmit the views of this Administration to the next.
This is not a great Bill, but it is a potentially good one. If the gaps are filled in, I suspect that most of the industry and most hon. Members present would be reasonably satisfied. After the election, we shall see what Administration we have, and hopefully the words of the Minister of State will influence his successor so that when the regulatory authority is established, the guidelines will


be stronger and will not give the new SIA carte blanche to allow the old nonsense that has bedevilled the industry for the past 25 years to continue.
We do not want the SIA simply to be a gatekeeper, regulating who comes into the industry. We want it to be a catalyst for progressive change in an industry that has underperformed over the years. We are now setting the framework for an industry of which we can be proud, not to, of, or about which we can be hostile, critical and ambivalent. I will support the Bill, in the hope that it will deliver more than a rather negative view of it might lead us to conclude it will.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am even more delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), one of the leading experts on the subject in the country, if not the world. His speech was one of the most effective that I have heard in my nine years as a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the Minister is patient, I shall give way in a minute. I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South because his speech was statesmanlike. I hope that in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's great experience on the subject, the Minister listened carefully to what he had to say.
I want to quote from the right hon. Gentleman's book, which he wrote last year with Mark Button, because he summed up the private security industry admirably. He said:
The term 'private security industry' is a generic term used to describe an amalgam of distinct industries and professions bound together by a number of functions, including crime prevention, order maintenance, loss reduction and protection; but these functions are neither common nor exclusive to all the activities of the private security industry, though the more that apply to a particular activity the more clearly it can be considered as private security.
I agree with that definition entirely. I now give way to the Minister.

Mr. Clarke: Why did the hon. Gentleman wait five hours before seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Why was he not here for the first four hours of the debate?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: That is a rather churlish point. The Minister knows perfectly well that hon. Members have other duties in the House. Any Member is entitled to attend a debate and to speak in the House, provided that we can catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and hopefully to achieve some benefit by doing so. The House may conceivably derive some benefit from the speech.

Mr. Bercow: May I put it on the record that my hon. Friend and I have previously discussed this matter, that I thought it entirely possible that he might wish to speak on the important issues appertaining to the private security industry and that I, for one, am delighted that he is now contributing to the debate? Will my hon. Friend take it from me that I am delighted to be here to wind up the debate, and to wait right up to the last speech before

the Minister's, in the approach to 10 o'clock if necessary? [Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering inanely from a sedentary position, expressing his disapproval of anybody else's entitlement to speak.
Does my hon. Friend accept that the Minister's attitude is simply due to the fact that he is gradually becoming a bit too big for his boots? He thinks that he is important and superior, and that he should be somewhere else; he cannot really be bothered and he does not want to listen. That is arrogance, and he deserves to be kicked out of office as soon as possible.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right—the Minister has a bullying, hectoring style. He is part of an overbearing Executive who would rather put legislation through the House with no debate at all, so of course he does not want Members to speak on the matter, to debate it thoroughly and to explore all the points that need to be made.

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the Minister is going to make the sort of intervention that he made before, I shall not give way, but if it is to be a sensible, constructive intervention, I will. Does he wish to intervene?

Mr. Clarke: indicated dissent.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: No, he does not, so his intervention was not to be sensible and constructive. That says volumes about the Minister of State.
Let us return to the real debate before you call us all to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South helpfully listed the sorts of activity that are covered by the private security industry. It is worth examining their scope, as the industry covers an extremely wide field. It covers manned security services, including static guarding, cash in transit, door supervision, stewardship, close protection, detention services, security storage and shredding; professional security services, including security consultants and professional investigators; and security products, including intruder alarms, closed circuit television, access control, electronic article surveillance equipment, detection equipment, locks, safes, vaults, security storage, barriers, shutters, fences, security glass windows and armoured vehicles. It can be seen that the industry's scope is very wide.
The Minister of State asked why I wanted to participate in the debate. Had he been a little more patient and listened to my speech a little longer before intervening, he would have learned that it so happens that the offices of the Group 4 security firm are located in my constituency.

Mr. Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall in a little while, but only if the Minister's intervention is going to be sensible and constructive.
During my years as a Member of Parliament, the director of Group 4, David Dickinson, has become a good friend. He is an extremely sensible person whom I last met when I went to see the potential asylum seekers from


the hijacked Afghan aircraft, who were temporarily housed at the fire service college in my constituency. He was personally supervising the guarding operation for them and we renewed our friendship on that occasion. He has said of the Bill:
Self-regulation has failed. There are too many horror stories around and too many people who are engaging in criminality under the cloak of the private security industry.
Most of us would say amen to that.

Mr. Clarke: I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that the fact that he represents part of that company has already been discussed at some length by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who also made many of the points that the hon. Gentleman is now making. However, as he was not present, he would not know that.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and discussed with him the points that he made. I do not think that he made the points that I have already made, and I believe that in the rest of my speech I shall not make precisely the same points as he made. Again, the Minister of State's intervention has been churlish and not very constructive, so I shall now continue with my speech and hope not to have to give way to him too many more times. However, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Hayes: I simply wanted to say that the Minister is doing his reputation no good with those foolish interventions. He would do well to remember the words of Mark Twain, who said that it was better to remain seated in silence and be suspected of being stupid than to rise to one's feet and speak, and remove all doubt.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall not pursue my hon. Friend's line. He has made his point in his own way. Suffice it to say that the Minister is extremely able on occasion, and he demeans himself when he makes the sort of intervention that he has made during my speech. I hope that we can now proceed in a constructive manner.
The chairman of the Association of Security Consultants, who has also welcomed the Bill, said:
I am pleased to see that 'Regulation' will be in a Bill before Parliament in the next session".
On the whole, the Bill has received a welcome in general terms. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for Walsall, South that it does not go far enough and that it is insufficiently comprehensive, so I issue a small challenge: if the Bill is not passed before the general election, perhaps there will be time during the recess for him to compose some useful amendments and addendums to the Bill. The Minister of State then might—in a constructive manner, I hope—consider those amendments and addendums before reintroducing the Bill in the new Parliament, if that is the intention. We would all benefit from that advice and information.
The Bill has had a quite a long genesis. I do not want to go into its full history; suffice it to say that much of that genesis occurred under the previous Conservative Government. A consultation paper was issued in

December 1986, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who was then a Home Office Minister, said:
We want to get at the one man and his dog, the cowboy, the guy who has stayed out of Wormwood Scrubs and is trying to work as a security guard the next day.
That is precisely the type of person whom we want to eliminate. It has recently been estimated that 2,600 crimes a year are committed by people hiding behind the apparent legitimacy of a security guard's uniform. As I said, such people should be banned from employment.
I made a few points in response to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, including the fact that it is essential—this should be covered in primary legislation—that the public have legitimate means of knowing who security guards are and whether they are licensed by the Security Industry Authority or are employed by firms licensed by the SIA. I hope that the Minister will deal with that in his winding-up speech.
The British Security Industry Association is the main professional trade association for the security industry. As I said in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, 70 per cent. of the security business in the United Kingdom is covered by its members. Although it has largely welcomed the Bill, in line with the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms it has issued a number of strictures and reservations about it. It is worth briefly going through the aspects with which it is unhappy, including the lack of mandatory inspection for security companies. We would probably all like that to be covered by the Bill. If there is no mandatory inspection, how can we be sure that the inspection regime operating properly?
The association has reservations about the absence of licensing for in-house officers. If officers running such firms are not properly licensed, how do we know that they are running them properly? The association also mentions in-house CCTV monitoring personnel and alarm installers. There is a very good CCTV scheme in Cirencester in my constituency. It was one of the first in the country, was grant-aided by the previous Conservative Government and works incredibly effectively, covering the centre of Cirencester and a wider area—some security cameras are on a high building and can scan a long way. When it was first introduced, there were civil liberties concerns but, as time has passed, people have got used to it and feel safer in the centre of Cirencester. A number of serious criminals have been apprehended through the CCTV scheme. Although it is often manned by civilians, there are strict rules on how long the pictures can be stored for recall. Basically, they can be stored for more than 24 hours if there is a suspicion of a crime. It is precisely those issues that need to be discussed; the private security industry must follow similarly strict guidelines.
The association also says that a fair and efficient system of retrospective licensing is needed so that companies are not disadvantaged. Clearly, there needs to be a reasonable period after the Bill comes into operation to allow security firms—not just the big two or three firms, but the little firms that want to do a good job—to meet its requirements. Little firms are not all cowboys. Many of them want to do a decent job and to be employed by bigger companies to carry out guarding activities. We should allow them to come up to the standards of training and efficiency that the Bill requires, so there should be a reasonable phase-in period.
The BSIA seeks clarification as to whether cash-in-transit personnel are included in the provisions. I endorse that. Operations involving cash in transit run by Group 4 have been well run, but there is scope for all sorts of things to go wrong for firms that are not quite up to the mark in this respect.
Finally, there is the high estimated cost of the licence—an old theme of mine. When a non-departmental public body is created, it should be cost-effective. It should charge the minimum necessary to cover its costs, and it should not be riddled with excessive bureaucracy.
I know that others want to speak, so I shall deal with just one or two of the more important matters that I intended to discuss tonight. Training is an important aspect of the Bill. As I mentioned to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South in an intervention, the BSIA carries out training, and has long experience of doing that. By training up to the standard of ISO 9000 and co-operating with and consulting various European security organisations, it has acquired huge knowledge of the subject. Although it should not be the sole provider of training, that bank of knowledge about how to train security guards and firms should be used. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
On the licensing regime, I have said that it should not cost any more or be more bureaucratic than is strictly necessary. As a non-departmental body, it will still be subject to ministerial direction and subject to audit, as though it were a Government Department. I urge the Minister to ensure that it is not excessively expensive or bureaucratic.
It is important that there is a proper appeals mechanism for firms and individuals who are not granted a licence. No one wants to allow cowboys to operate, but regulation could become draconian. We could end up with a cosy little club, with only the elite in the security industry getting a licence. We need to be fair to smaller operations.
A licence will be required for a firm to engage in manned guarding, including overseeing property and premises. That impinges on the wheelclamping issue. We have all heard horror stories about innocent people being beaten up after straying on to private premises. We have heard of cowboys wheelclamping cars that were parked on private premises by mistake, not releasing those cars for several days and demanding huge ransoms before the wheelclamps are removed. Such activity should not be tolerated in a free society. Yes, under proper licence, wheelclamping is an effective deterrent to illegal parking on private property, but there should be good reason for it.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Can he confirm, for the benefit of the House, that no cowboy wheelclamping takes place on his estate?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I can confirm that absolutely. Not only does wheelclamping not take place, but I have never employed a wheelclamper, be he cowboy or any other type, in my life. I hope that I shall never need to do so. In Norfolk, we are a relatively law-abiding community. Although fly tipping and the dumping of old cars are an increasing local menace, I hope that they will never necessitate wheelclamping.
A licence will also be required for the work done by a private investigator in undertaking surveillance and investigations to obtain information about another person.

Those are especially sensitive matters. We all know about private investigators. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) bobs up to ask me whether I have ever employed one, I assure him that I have never done so. Indeed, I hope that I shall never need to do so, but we all know that some individuals need to employ investigators for various commercial and personal reasons. That is understandable, but investigators must be required to adhere to a carefully defined legislative licence regime. Nobody wants private investigators to go around breaking the law.
The House of Lords agreed to an amendment that exempted all private domestic dwellings from the remit of security firms operating under the terms of the Bill. That must be right. Nobody wants to encourage anybody, whether or not he or she is a private investigator, to break into a private dwelling without the permission of its owner or occupier. Of course, the giving of advice about security devices and precautions will also have to be subject to licensing. Many people use bugging and surveillance devices, especially when they work in investigation, but such devices should be covered by strict rules and a licensing procedure.
Finally, in respect of keyholders, I assume that the Bill covers only professional firms. I have a private friend who acts as a keyholder for the alarm system on my house, so I hope that he will not be categorised as doing the job specified in the Bill. The Bill should, however, cover the professional security firm that installed and maintained my alarm, as it is also a keyholder.
Other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall conclude my remarks. I broadly welcome the Bill and I hope that the Government will give it the serious consideration that it deserves. If they call a premature election on 3 May, it might be one of the casualties of the final sort-out. I have no idea whether that will happen, as I will not be a party to the relevant negotiations. If the Bill is dropped, however, it will have to be reintroduced in the next Parliament. If that happens, I hope that the Government will think carefully about what has been said tonight. I hope especially that they will take the advice of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, but I ask them to listen also to all the other comments that have been made. For once, let us see whether we can produce through genuine parliamentary debate a better Bill than the one first published by the Government.

Mr. John Hayes: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who always brings to our deliberations the energy of a terrier and the charm of a spaniel. I am pleased also to follow the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), whose experience in these matters is legendary. Any even cursory examination of the subject with which the Bill deals leaves one with the impression that deliberations on such matters have been peppered for more than 15 years with references to him and to his comments.
The history of private security is a long one. Indeed, it might be said that it extends back into pre history. In bed last night, I was reading "The Golden Bough" by Frazer, and I was reminded of the kingdom in the part of southern Europe that is now Italy where murder was the normal


means of succession for the monarch, as the person who murdered him took his place. Consequently, monarchs spent most of their time running around a tree, looking for potential murderers and jumping at shadows. I suppose that that was an example of personal private security. If we trace law enforcement and personal security through the ages, we find that it has largely been conducted privately. Public security is a relatively modern phenomenon, and the notion of putting law enforcement into the hands of a publicly funded police force is recent.
Should there be regulation? The case has been well made in tonight's discussions, but it is worth considering the conclusions of the 1995 report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the private security industry. Several hon. Members have already referred to it. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South will be familiar with it because he gave evidence to that inquiry. The conclusions did not concur with his recommendations, but they paid tribute to the pertinence of his contribution. The report concluded:
We conclude that current standards, particularly standards of training, in much of the private security industry are unsatisfactory and below the level the public need and have a right to expect. We note that it is in the manned guarding sector of the industry that most of the worst examples are to be found. We are particularly concerned about the evidence that there is a growing problem of totally unregulated private local patrolling operations, often preying on the fears of vulnerable people, and we conclude that this needs to be tackled firmly.
The subject of private patrolling organisations will permeate much of my speech. We must strike a balance between law enforcement in the private and public sectors. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South referred to that. Such a balance is vital to maintain public confidence in the proper enforcement of law; it could be jeopardised unless we take the right action in the Bill and elsewhere.
Because I want to dwell briefly on the constitutional issues that are associated with the relationship between the public and law enforcement, as would be expected, I immediately searched for my copy of "The English Police—A Political and Social History" by Clive Emsley. Chapter 5 refers to a case in 1893 when the Home Secretary was asked about an English woman, a member of the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom, who was allegedly treated with "rudeness and even violence" by a member of the Metropolitan police. The police denied the charge and Mr. Asquith, who was Home Secretary at the time, said:
I do not see any reason for doubting the accuracy of the police statement.
Mr. Emsley concludes:
The Bobby was now firmly established as a part of the model British Constitution.
The publicly funded police forces of the United Kingdom are indeed perceived as an intrinsic part of the constitution. We need to consider the balance between private and public law enforcement in that context.
I want to refer to a second study, which covers public perception of the constitutional aspect of policing. "The Force Inside the Police", by Robert Chesshyre, firmly makes the case for the positive perception of the police force. The public has a different perception of and relationship with the private security industry. In that

respect, I slightly disagreed with the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, as he may have inferred from my intervention.
We discussed people who wear badges, uniforms and caps and whether they were the equivalent of policemen. Mr. Robert Chesshyre states in his book that when a policeman turns up, he is merely a policeman and has a degree of anonymity. Chapter 7 states:
But that anonymity does not mean that we are neutral towards the unknown officer, as we are towards others who wear uniforms, such as postmen, ticket collectors or gasmen, civilians like ourselves merely masquerading in fancy dress while they go about their business. Every policeman is a representative of the force: the sight of him may move us to feelings of relief, security and trust; or fear, hatred and contempt. He is the 'law', he is authority.
That authority vested in the police force is critical to the public perception of the police, and we must tread carefully and warily when we advocate the use of private security forces if we believe that they will in any way jeopardise or impinge on that relationship, that perception and that understanding of the police force by the public.
I would like to speak for a great deal longer, as I have a great deal more to say. However, I shall end by talking about the ethical dimensions of law enforcement. I want to refer to "Power and Restraint, the Moral Dimension of Police Work" by Cohen and Feldberg. I shall list the things that seem important in that respect, and then I shall sit down.
Mr. Cohen and Mr. Feldberg tell us:
There are five ethical standards against which police work can be judged.
I think that, to some degree, this applies also to the private security industry. They go on to list those standards.
Standard I: Fair Access. As a social resource, police must provide fair access to their services.
Standard II: Public Trust, Citizens, having limited their right to enforce their own rights, have made police work a public trust.
That also applies to the private security industry.
Standard III: Safety and Security. Police must undertake law enforcement within tie framework of maintaining safety and security.
Standard IV: Teamwork. Police are part of a system that includes legislators, other law enforcers,"—
this is the partnership that I am talking about—
prosecutors and judges, so their behaviour must meet the tests of teamwork: coordination, communication and cooperation.
Standard V: Objectivity. Police work is a social role that often requires the officer to set personality and feelings aside, and demonstrate objectivity 
Those studies are useful and apposite in considering the matters before us tonight. Unless the private security industry can, through the Bill and other measures that the House might introduce, conform to the constitutional role of the police that I have described, maintain the public trust that I have illustrated, and—vitally—ensure that those ethical standards for law enforcement are maintained, I believe that we are heading towards a dangerous abyss, into which no Member of the House, of whatever party, would wish us to tumble.

Mr. John Bercow: This has been an excellent debate, to which, thus far, no fewer than 14 right hon. and hon. Members have contributed. The level of interest in the subject reflects its importance.
The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), set out the context of our debate on Second Reading at the outset of his speech. There are approximately 8,000 firms in the private security industry sector. Estimates differ as to the number of people whom they employ, but it seems that the most recent is about 350,000. The industry enjoys a turnover of about £2 billion a year.
The Minister was right to say that the industry is, on the whole, successful. It has a good track record and is delivering much that we can celebrate. I could not help but be a trifle amused by the entirely appropriate chiding of the Minister by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who pointed out that the Minister's cheery acknowledgement of the success of the industry was in marked and hasty contrast to what he and his right hon. and hon. Friends had been saying in opposition. At that time, they were happy to conjure up an impression of a largely ineffectual, thoroughly corrupt and almost totally discredited industry. None of those charges is true. I am grateful that the Minister has now experienced an apostolic conversion and is prepared to concede that the sector contributes much that we can welcome.
The Minister was a little weak on some of the facts. I was surprised at that, because I have often drawn attention to his seriousness and, in particular, to the seriousness with which he regards himself. He is an ambitious fellow. He is very busy, very influential, very senior, very respected, and very important. He has many ambitions, many commitments, and certainly a very full diary. I was a little disappointed, in the circumstances, that he did not seem to appreciate the significance of the point about small businesses in the sector, and the proportion of the totality of the sector for which those businesses account.
I think that I am right in saying that approximately 80 per cent. of the sector is represented by companies employing fewer than 50 people. That fact, which is critical to our exchanges, is fundamental to the issue of regulation, the extent of that regulation, the costs that it will necessarily impose and, therefore, the need to be judicious and as restrained as possible in the new but justifiable impositions. At any rate, the Minister believes that we now need a statutory framework. He is able to adduce evidence from the private sector that that is what many companies—probably most—want to achieve. Although he skated over the improvements that have been made thus far through more effective self-regulation, he was entitled to point out that the vast majority of European Union member states have a statutory regulatory system.
I simply make the point that in our perhaps understandable impatience to legislate to remedy or mitigate an identifiable evil, it is important to take care not to over-egg the pudding. I am entitled to say to the Minister, who has an army of civil servants to advise him, that we need to take account of what the record shows in other countries. Okay, they have regulatory systems, and those systems have statutory force. They entail, among other things, imposing charges and levying fees. What, in practical terms, do they achieve to reduce or diminish the incidence of crime, and at what cost?
Of course, there is always a balance to be considered, and an opportunity cost is involved as well. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred to small companies and the burdens that they might

face. It is important to emphasise that not all small companies want permanently to remain small. If they are to have the opportunity to grow legitimately and constructively, it is important that we minimise the legislative and regulatory burden on them.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has referred to the financial aspects of the need to keep bureaucracy low so that the costs of licensing are low and reasonable for small firms. Does he also accept that the regime itself needs to be reasonable? It would be possible to promote a regime so exacting that it would be difficult for small firms to continue. They would be frozen out and that would produce a cosy club of big security firms.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is right. The affordability of the regulatory system and the extent to which it impacts on the bottom line is not the only issue—the psychological impact of the decision to legislate and to regulate is also important. I have often made the point, not least when I introduced a ten-minute Bill on 27 April 1999 about regulations on small firms, that, too often, they give up the unequal struggle against the regulatory leviathan. That is depressing, and it is our fault. Small firms do not necessarily go bankrupt; they simply decide that it is no longer worth the candle. I am grateful to him for pointing that out.
The debate was opened from these Benches in characteristically robust and eloquent fashion by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who covered the broad canvas of issues that are relevant to the Bill. In particular, and like other Members to whom I shall refer in a moment, he mentioned the frankly evil practices of a great many of the cowboy wheelclampers across the country. I am glad that he did so, and the theme was echoed throughout the debate.
My hon. Friend also made a point about the scope of the Bill and the importance of ensuring that we know exactly to whom it applies. I share his concern that, for example, computer specialists engaged in sensitive work on behalf of their employers or, on a contractual basis, for clients, could find themselves inadvertently drawn into the embrace of the Bill. Ministers give us the impression that that would not be so, but we cannot be sure and we would welcome assurance on the point.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who, sadly, is not in his place, traced the evolution of the Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is returning to his seat. He had much that was worthwhile and informative to say. I was, however, a little taken aback by one aspect of his speech. In the first part, he was at pains to emphasise that he was not keen on extensive and zealous regulation; in the second part, however, he lamented the inadequacy of the Bill's scope, and said that he wanted further regulation. Never mind: we shall try to square that circle at some stage. He speaks with experience and some authority, and the House accordingly listened to him with respect.
The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) welcomed the Bill in general, but drew attention to two important points. The first related to the independence of the Security Industry Authority, or what might more accurately be described as the current concern that it will not be as independent as it should be. She rightly dwelt on the power of appointment, and seemed to be keen—as


we are—for ministerial discussion to be if not eliminated, at any rate properly circumscribed. She also—again, rightly—referred to the powers of entry and inspection. She will, I think, be aware that a number of us have made similar observations in relation to other recent legislation. It should be said, in fairness, that comments by Conservative Members on such matters were echoed by Liberal Democrats during, for example, our recent debates on the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. I therefore identify strongly with what she said today.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) brought to bear the perspective of one representing a seaside constituency. He also spoke, with many examples in mind, of the adverse impact of wheelclampers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield delivered a tour de force in what may prove to be his valedictory address to the House, more than 30 years after he first entered it. He rightly reminded us of the ten-minute Bill—the Security Industry Licensing Bill—that he presented in 1973. He was, if I may say so, relatively relaxed and insouciant about the fact that it had taken 28 years for his wise words and policy recommendations to be translated into practice.
My right hon. Friend made another important point. He said that in no sense should the gradual increase in the numbers and powers of private security industry employees be allowed effectively—perhaps even surreptitiously—to substitute for the legitimate, historic and proper role of the public service called the police. He made the practical point that the genesis of the police force that we now enjoy and wish to preserve was, in fact, the ending of private patrols. It was precisely because of the inadequacy of that system that we developed a more satisfactory arrangement.
The Minister has sought to assuage our concerns by indicating that the Government have no intention of substituting the private security industry for the police force. I hope that he will accept—if he does not, I am afraid reality will prove that he will be obliged to do so—that deeds matter more than words. It is important for us to ensure, in practice as well as in rhetoric, that there is a role for the private security industry, but that it does not seek to supplant or nudge out of the way the public service called the police force.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does it not concern my hon. Friend that that is precisely what is happening? The police are expecting more and more people to employ private security firms and to use alarm systems, because, unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer police on the beat to guarantee the safe towns and safe countryside that people have taken for granted in the past.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is right. He knows the truth from bitter experience, not least in his Macclesfield constituency—but that experience is replicated, almost without exception, throughout the United Kingdom. Under this Government, who said that they would support the police, we have fewer police. They bear greater burdens, they are given less support, and they are constantly told that they must do more with less. My hon. Friend has encapsulated that point in his characteristically eloquent fashion.
The hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) made an excellent speech—it was witty, it was engaging, and it marked the culmination of a long-standing campaign by her to take proper action against wheelclampers. I am well aware that she has asked four parliamentary questions on the subject in this Parliament, between, I think, 7 July 1997—a date of particular significance to me—and 4 February 2000. I think that I was in the Chamber on the occasions on which she asked those questions. I therefore know the feeling with which she speaks on the subject, and I hope that she feels that she had a proper outing today.
The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) lamented the phenomenon of the cowboy dampers. However, I suggest to him that, in a sense, what we are talking about are the "Del Boy" dampers. They are the dampers who give legitimate dampers a bad name.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy)—only part of whose speech I was able to hear—apparently told the House of his experience as a security guard in, I think, 1991. He made the wider point that he saw quite a few students working part-time in a security capacity while also studying for their exams. I think that he underlined the importance of partnership between the private security industry and the police. However, the relationship must be one of partnership and not one of substitution.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) gave us many examples from his own area. He seemed to be an enthusiastic, if belated advocate of the Bill's contents.
The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) made one of the fittest speeches that I have heard in this place since I was elected in May 1997. He had an effortless command of his subject and I listened to him attentively throughout. I hope that he is not too disappointed that the Government have not paid as much notice to what he has been saying as he had hoped. I am still a little suspicious of him in this matter because, at heart, he is a socialist and I am a Conservative. He believes in regulation and I am rather suspicious of it. Nevertheless, I listened to what he had to say with interest and respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold drew attention to a number of representations from the industry about the Bill's deficiencies.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) treated us to a combination of historical reminiscence and constitutional exegesis of a type to which we are fast becoming accustomed from him. It was high-calibre stuff and I much enjoyed it.
The truth of the matter is that the Government have made a case for the creation of the authority, the issue of licences and establishment of the new offence of operating without a licence or offering security services without a licence. However, it is very important indeed that we should have a proper debate on the Bill's contents.
The reality is that, ultimately, in the other place 23 amendments were made—three in Committee and a further 20 on Report, covering such diverse but important issues as licensing, the Bill's scope, exemptions from the Bill and the appeals procedure. As we know, there is scope within the Bill for the modification, revocation or suspension of a licence. It must be right to have, for example, the balancing mechanism of an appeals system that is credible and fair and that is seen to be credible and fair. In that relatively brief—I do not say cursory, because


my noble Friend Lord Cope of Berkeley did the job extremely well—consideration of the issues in the other place, a goodly number of amendments were made to the Bill. It is important that we should have the chance to make amendments.
We have to be sure of the independence of the Security Industry Authority. We have to be certain that, in practice, the Bill's provisions will not be a queue for or staging post en route to the substitution of the private security industry for the legitimate and historically accepted functions of the police force. We have to guard against what Lord Cope rightly described in the other place as the "law of unintended consequences". That law operates in such a manner that sectors, companies and individuals who did not think that they fell within the Bill's ambit might subsequently discover that they do, with damage to their businesses, unanticipated costs and implications for employment.
There is also the very important issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath raised in his opening speech of the list of licensed persons. I hope that the Minister will have something to say today on that issue. There may be a good reply on the issue, but it is important that people should be aware of what the issue is. There is intended to be a publicly available list of licensed operators. My hon. Friend raised the legitimate concern that if the list is available, names and addresses will be known. That means that people operating in the sector could be subject to vengeful attacks by people who had fallen foul of them and who bore a grudge.
Little has been said of the related issue of the costs that flow from the Bill, which is accompanied by a frankly pitiful regulatory impact assessment The summary of the assessment consists of about two paragraphs of breathtaking complacency from the Government. From time to time, the most extraordinary parameters for possible costs are given. For example, we are told that costs for the voluntary scheme arising from the Bill could range from £1 million to £9 million a year. Another cost is put at £110,000—methinks it a trifle unlikely that that cost will be sustained.
One does not need to look into the crystal ball when one can read the book. We talk about fees and charges, but the Government have already increased their estimate of the licence cost from £22 to £40. That is dramatically above the inflation level, and the rise has happened in a very short space of time. Unless there is a more robust, credible and fully explained regulatory impact assessment, the concern must be that eventual costs will substantially outstrip those currently portended.
Important matters remain to be debated and considered thoroughly. Much detail has to be studied. I emphasise to the Minister that I have an on-going concern for which I make no apology. It is that the Government intend to do a good deal of their work in this sector by means of secondary legislation. I referred in an earlier intervention to some of the regulations that we will face. We should subject any regulations that the Government introduce to the affirmative procedure, so that a proper debate can be held. In the absence of such a procedure—for which the Minister has not given a proper justification—we should at least be granted the courtesy of advance sight of a draft copy of the intended regulations.
We need to be assured also by the Minister that a proper period of consultation—of not less than three months—will be devoted to the regulations, and that there will be a similar period of notice of their required implementation. The Government's motives are sound, but we have to be clear that the detail will match the rhetoric.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) made an outstanding speech, in which he pointed out all the weaknesses in the Bill as it stands. He is a formidable performer and could happily have gone on for another hour if we had indulged him, and he only touched on—or skated over—some of his concerns about the measure.
I want to be reassured by the Minister. I hope that he will make a genuine attempt to do that. I own up to the fact that I err on the side of opposition and caution when it comes to regulation. I make no apology for that. I happen to believe that, on the whole, Walter Lipmann was right: in a free society the state does not administer the affairs of men and women, but rather it administers justice among men and women who conduct their own affairs.
We must be sure that we do not over-regulate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote the foreword to "Equipping Britain for our Long-Term Future", Labour's business manifesto issued in April 1997. He stated that a Labour Government would not impose burdensome regulations on business because the Labour party understood that successful businesses had to keep costs down.
I am sorry to say that that pledge has not been honoured. There has been an explosion of regulation. The sea of regulation now facing businesses is greater than any with which they have had to contend previously. We must make sure that the regulations imposed by the Bill are necessary, proportionate and effective. They must be no more burdensome than is necessary.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Until after the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the debate was first class. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) opened excellently for the Opposition; he set out their position clearly and made a number of points to which I tried to respond. I shall deal with those to which I could not give an adequate response; for example, I shall try to give a constructive reply to his point on the computer industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) made an exceptionally informed speech, based on his experience as a GMB organiser. He knows about the industry and knows what is involved; he enlightened the debate. The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) put the position of her party clearly and articulately; her contribution added to the debate. She made raised a couple of important points to which I shall respond in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) made an excellent speech on a slightly more profound aspect of the Bill—the attempt to change the culture in parts of the country such as his constituency—and noted that a properly regulated industry could lead to a better state of affairs in society. He made an extremely interesting and provocative speech.


I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made an outstanding speech, from his own experience and his campaigns on such matters. I shall address some of his points shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) went through the arguments on wheelclamping with tremendous clarity and passion. I hope that the passage of the Bill will be a commendation for and vindication of the personal campaign that she has mounted, along with motoring organisations and others.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) for having had to miss part of his speech. He put an excellent and constructive set of arguments based on his experience in industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) came dangerously close to creeping socialism as he put his argument for greater municipalisation; his remarks were powerful and important. My hon. Friends the Members for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) and for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) spoke extremely appropriately and from some personal experience of the importance of the position of the individual and of what might be done in that regard. They made excellent contributions.
The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South was an outstanding tour d'horizon. He went through the whole issue. The first of my specific responses will deal with the points that he raised. His outstanding personal experience shone through his contribution and his conduct of the debate.
At the end of the debate, the hon. Member for Buckingham made an excellent statement of his party's position. He participated fully in the debate.
A couple of contributions were made towards the end of the debate by hon. Members who were dragged in to lose time, having missed the first four or five hours of our proceedings. I shall give no time to them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South referred to the Swedish example—interestingly, as a Swedish manager has just ensured our important 3-1 win in Tirana. I tried to work closely with my right hon. Friend before and during preparations for the Bill, precisely because of his tremendous experience in the field. My opening speech addressed some of the points that he made, although I appreciate that he was unable to hear it because he was chairing the Select Committee on Defence.
I shall go quickly through the points made by my right hon. Friend. He referred to the nature of the Security Industry Authority. As I said earlier, we attach tremendous importance to the independence of the SIA. It must be genuinely independent and strong. That is why—to respond to a point raised by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath—we are not in favour, at present, of specifying exactly the range of interest groups that should be included on the body.
We want a genuinely independent, strong regulatory body—not one that is the lapdog of either the Home Secretary of the day or the industry—that will develop and use the powers set out in the Bill and thereby give my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South the assurance that he seeks: that the SIA will not be a quiet

body that makes only a small shift from the status quo, but a serious organisation that will drive forward reform of the industry in the various sectors to which he referred. For that reason, its independence is important.
As my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members rightly said, it is also important that the SIA has a strong relationship and links with the industry: it must not be distant. I hope that I have given my right hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.
On in-house provisions, which were also referred to by other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, I emphasise my earlier point that our minds are not closed to the arguments in favour of regulating in-house staff; we shall bear them closely iii mind. The authority has been given a general duty to keep operation of the industry under full review. We shall hold a formal review of all the arrangements after the authority has been in force for three years. The Bill is flexible, and the Government can add or delete sectors of the industry by regulation. We will pay very close attention to any recommendation from the authority that in-house manned guards should be brought within the scope of regulation. I acknowledge that that argument is being advanced not only by my right hon. Friend but by several organisations in the industry. It is likely, therefore, that that argument could have a good hearing at that point. I believe that the Bill allows for that.
On the "voluntary versus compulsory" point that my right hon. Friend and a number of other hon. Members have made, the Bill contains explicit provisions to convert the voluntary scheme into a compulsory one if the authority and the Government are convinced that that is the right thing to do. Once again, we will listen carefully to what the SIA tells us about the operation of the voluntary schemes and the extent to which they have or have not failed to deal with the issues that my right hon. Friend raised in his intervention. The Government are entirely open to that approach.
There was no conspiracy among the security industry on the "voluntary versus compulsory" point. The better regulation taskforce scrutinised the Bill very closely to check for burdens on industry—a serious issue that we took seriously. There was no plot within part of the security industry; we were concerned with the ideological position, if I may put it like that—the role of regulation in modern society and where it goes.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield raised the issue of width and alarm installers. We are very much open to arguments in that regard. As my right hon. Friend said, the Bill already gives the SIA a major task and we do not want further to front-load its waiting list of people to license.
Our aim is to get the authority up and running with the duties set out in the Bill as drafted, and then listen to the voice of experience. That applies very much to alarm installation. The key reason why alarm installers are not covered by the Bill is that when we went into detail about the criminality that could be demonstrated in relation to that industry, as opposed to the criminality that can patently be demonstrated in relation to, for example, the manned guarding industry, the evidence of such criminality from the police and others was significantly less, which was a significant factor. Of course, the evidence may change as new forms of criminality become


evident, and such evidence would be decisive in getting both the authority and the Secretary of State of the day to address the issue very directly.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South and several of my hon. Friends spoke about the important matter of training; my right hon. Friend did so with particular force. I want to reinforce the provisions of the Bill. Under clause 1(2), it is a function of the authority
to set or approve standards of conduct, training and levels of supervision for adoption by—
those involved in the industry, and
to make recommendations and proposals for the maintenance and improvement of standards in the … industry".
Those are very real statutory functions
I agree, and have said so publicly many times, that getting the training right—I am not subscribing to a list of particular functions—is a key element in raising the standard of the service. I can confirm that I have talked to many of the private sector industries that we are debating, and the associations, the trade unions and the current educational bodies, all of which are committed to raising training standards. The Government are absolutely committed to raising training standards. We believe that the power that I have set out for the SIA provides the way to address that, and to do so explicitly
In some of the remarks that I am making, I am repeating what I said in my opening speech. I am now trying to say as strongly as I can that if we have the option of an SIA that is relatively flimsy and does not bring us very far from where we are now, or an SIA that independently and authoritatively goes about the job of driving up standards in the industry, it is the latter that we shall go for.
Many other points were made in interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North mentioned shadowy directors who may not need to be licensed under the Bill but who use employees for criminal purposes. The directors will need licences. If "Mr. Bigs" remain in the shadows, pulling the strings for criminal purposes, that is beyond the SIA's remit; it is a matter for the police. As discussed extensively in the other place, the Department of Trade and Industry has very extensive powers under the Companies Acts to close down companies that act inappropriately. The power to deal with the criminality of the Mr. Bigs that we are discussing lies with the police and company regulation.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire made a point about home addresses being made available on a public register, and it was reaffirmed by the hon. Member for Buckingham. The Bill will require the publication of addresses, but not necessarily home addresses. The publication of business addresses will be useful in regulating the industries. Some home addresses may be published if security operatives choose to operate their businesses from home, but in general the address given will be a matter for the individual concerned.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does not the Minister accept that Northern Ireland is a specific case, where it might not be advisable to publish even the names, because punishment beatings are continuing just as much as they did even before the Belfast agreement?

Mr. Clarke: I accept that Northern Ireland may be a specific case where that issue might be directly relevant,

and we are certainly prepared to consider it in that context. Precisely that issue was considered in detail when we discussed the addresses of the directors of animal research companies during recent debates on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill.
The hon. Member for Taunton referred to the exemption from licensing for accountancy firms. She expressed concern about whether that exemption would lead to an uneven playing field. The Government accepted arguments in the other place that members of accountancy bodies, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants, may be exempted from licensing. The relevant accountancy bodies are listed in clause 25. The Government did not, however, accept the arguments that employees of those accountancy companies should be exempt. The companies might be exempt, but not their employees, because we fully accept that that would lead to an uneven playing field, about which she expressed concern, where large accountancy firms have diversified into designated activities under the Bill. That provides the reassurance that she seeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South referred to child protection and amusement arcades, and he gave other reasonable examples. Under the Bill, anyone providing security services who is licensable will be given a Criminal Records Bureau check. Therefore, those who act as security guards in areas open to children will be checked. Outwith the Bill, any member of staff with access to children is eligible for CRB checks as set out under the various processes that have been discussed.
On wheelclamping, in-house employees or people providing the service will need to be licensed, but not volunteers. If the dentist to whom reference was made were to engage in do-it-yourself wheelclamping, he would need to qualify for a licence.
I shall not embark on the police numbers debate. We have been right around the houses about that in the debate, but we have just announced the largest increase in police numbers for 12 years, and they are increasing across the country.
A serious point was made, first, by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, and then by other hon. Members. He asked whether we intended to replace police with private security guards. We had an exchange on that, but I want to take this opportunity to say as clearly as I can that that is not the Government's policy. The Government's policy is, first, to increase police numbers in the way that we have set out, so that we shall have a record number of police in the history of this country by March 2003.
Secondly, our policy is to ensure that the office of constable, which police officers hold, is respected and operated throughout. Thirdly, it is to develop not competition but partnerships between the police and the private security industry so that they work together in all the ways that we have described. Absolutely no part of our policy involves replacing the police with private security companies, but we can argue about how such partnerships can be implemented.
Finally, in a spirit of inquiry, I asked the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield why he thought that previous Conservative Governments had not regulated the industry during their 18 years in power. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire put his finger on it when he said there was an issue about the merits of regulation versus


the merits of deregulation. He implied that, on balance, previous Conservative Governments had decided that they would not introduce a regulatory burden of any kind.
The hon. Member for Buckingham said very honestly at the end of his speech that that burden was right at the top of his concerns and doubts. I tell the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield in particular that if the Conservatives were to form a Government after the general election, there is absolutely no guarantee that they would put such legislation into effect. That did not happen for 18 years, and it would not happen now. That is why the Bill deserves its Second Reading, and I hope that the House will agree to it tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Private Security Industry Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Private Security Industry Bill [Lords]:

Standing Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.
3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 1st May 2001.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at six o'clock on that day.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at seven o'clock on that day.

6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Lords messages

7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith

The motion proposes that the Committee stage should conclude by 1 May at the latest, with four days of double sittings. That seems to be an ample amount of time—eight sittings in all—to debate a medium-sized and uncontentious Bill such as this. Of course, the Programming Sub-Committee may decide that it is necessary for the Committee to sit more frequently than usual. Therefore, I give the assurance that I have given on previous occasions: if there is a need for more time, we are prepared to consider it through the process of the Programming Sub-Committee.

Mr. Quentin Davies: The Minister is a thoughtful and sensible Member of the House, but does he not think that it is a little pretentious of him to speak on behalf of the Government in presenting a Bill to the House and then presume to decide for himself how long the House of Commons may choose to take to consider his proposed legislation?

Mr. Clarke: The short answer is no, I do not think that. The procedure whereby the Government table a programme motion for debate is the right process. I know that the Programming Sub-Committee procedures are controversial and I know that there are arguments about them—I am sure that we shall have the familiar debate again—but all Members can participate in the process.


I have been through the process on several occasions this Session and I emphasise that the order of business to be debated by the Committee is, in the Government's view, in the gift of the Opposition. If the Opposition want to order the debates in a certain way because they think that certain subjects deserve priority, we are open to their suggestions, and our inclination will be to agree to their propositions.
On the amount of time for the Bill's consideration, we are prepared to extend the time available when that becomes necessary. However, as we have seen from the arguments on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill—I will not repeat them now—we are not sympathetic to those who wish to delay discussion rather than debate the substantive issues.

Mr. Luff: The Minister said that the programme motion allows for four days of double sittings. By my reckoning, he must mean the sittings on 10 April, 24 April, 26 April and 1 May. Are those dates correct?

Mr. Clarke: I think that those are the dates that we are thinking of, but I shall double check before I confirm that.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the Minister absolutely confident that we will be sitting on those dates and does he genuinely believe that the Committee will complete its consideration on 1 May? Will he give the House a straight answer?

Mr. Clarke: Earlier, I had an entertaining exchange with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) about this very matter. He thought that he had set a bait that I had eaten. However, I am not responsible for determining the date of the general election; I am not privy to the Prime Minister's thoughts on that. I read the newspapers and, like the whole House, I am aware that there is massive speculation about the possibility of a general election on 3 May. Massive issues surround the date—the Conservatives are afraid of it and we are keen on it—and many arguments is are being made. The Prime Minister will decide, as has been the case throughout our history. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) is a great constitutional expert and he knows that that is the case. I cannot prejudge what will happen, but I am confident that the House will give the Bill the full consideration that it deserves.
The Bill has already received full scrutiny in the other place, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) generously acknowledged on Second Reading. The Government made 23 amendments to the Bill in 13 hours of full debate. He will correct me if I am being unfair, but I think that all the parties in the other place thought that the Bill had been scrutinised well and that the arguments had been fully heard. The Bill was improved by its passage through the other place. That is an important point.
The disagreement over the Bill's provisions generally relate to matters of comparative detail, and that became clear in the Second Reading debate. I do not suggest that they are unimportant points of detail, because it is appropriate to consider them. However, they are matters of comparative detail.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Minister be kind enough to help the House

by giving a proper interpretation of paragraph 7? As I understand it, if we pass the programme motion, that paragraph will prevent us from debating any messages from the other place. Thus, if it produces dissenting amendments, we will not have an opportunity to discuss them. Am I right?

Mr. Clarke: I am loth to give a formal interpretation on the hoof to a man of such legal distinction. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill has been debated fully in the other place. It would be different if the Bill had been introduced in this place and became part of the tit for tat that can arise. However, I will take advice and clarify the matter if I can.
As for the dates mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), in case there is any doubt, we have in mind 10 April, 17 April, 24 April and 26 April—1 May is a stand-by date if we do not sit on 17 April.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am afraid that I am not as distinguished as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I should be grateful if the Minister explained in simple language, so that I can understand, what paragraph 7 means.

Mr. Clarke: I can read the paragraph easily enough.

Mr. Blunt: I have done that.

Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has; he is a skilled reader. No doubt service in the Army helped him in that regard.
The paragraph ensures that in
allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any messages from the Lords",
the Question should be put forthwith. That is a simple process, but I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman in more detail.

Mr. Bercow: Given that the Government published their White Paper on the subject in March 1999—exactly two years ago—and signalled their intention to legislate, will the Minister confirm that the Government have an idea of the intended regulations to give effect to parts of the Bill? If not, why not? If they do, why can we not have sight of the draft regulations?

Hon. Members: There they are.

Mr. Clarke: I am sorry to say that these are not the intended regulations.
The issue has been fully discussed and we have followed the same process, which I believe is correct, for other Bills. Before formally drafting regulations, it is appropriate for Parliament to consider the Bill, decide the framework of secondary legislation and consult across the industry. The hon. Gentleman, in his usual courteous way, is right to say that we have a good idea what we are talking about because substantial consultation has taken


place and the debate has been wide ranging. However, I do not think it is right to publish draft regulations before the House is clear about how it intends to legislate.

Sir Patrick Cormack: If the Government have a clear idea of what they intend to include in the regulations, would it not help the House in general and the Committee in particular to see them?

Mr. Clarke: I can give the hon. Gentleman the same commitment that I gave the hon. Member for Buckingham. I will do my best to ensure that draft regulations are available as early as possible. I am happy to do that because it is appropriate.
I understand that paragraph 7 uses the standard form of wording. The process is established. However, hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of the issues that surround the way in which it operates and the concerns of the Programming Sub-Committee. I think we all agree that the Modernisation Committee will need to consider how it has worked. There are issues of principle concerning the idea of a guillotine and practical issues about whether it is used in the right way. I can say firmly on behalf of the Government that we are ready to listen to suggestions.

Mr. John Gummer: The Minister is extremely courteous in giving way. In the same spirit, I say to him that there is no deep, fundamental argument about the Bill. It has been extremely well discussed in the other place. Is it not exactly the kind of Bill for which, in reasonable circumstances, the Government would not need to use a guillotine but would allow the House to take the necessary time? It is obviously not a Bill on which anybody would create difficulties, but there are points that hon. Members want to work on. Is this not precisely the occasion when the Government might have said to the House that they will not impose a guillotine?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but he knows very well the difficulty that the Government have had over the past few months. I do not seek to make an adversarial point, but we lack confidence in the Opposition's ability to undertake the rational consideration of Bills to which he referred. I think that such consideration is the right way to go about things, but some hon. Members have not been prepared to do that. They want to use the procedures of the House for reasons that have nothing to do with the substance of any particular Bill, but because of the overall process, to make general arguments about the allegedly dictatorial Government.
I am not making a point now about the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, about which there was some toing and froing earlier. [Interruption.] No, I will not dilate on that. I am often asked by the hon. Member for Buckingham to do things that I do not particularly want to do, but he will be glad to hear that I am strong-minded enough to resist his blandishments. I am sure that my very good friend, Mark Seddon, the editor of Tribune, will also be able to withstand his blandishments when he takes him on in any general election that is to come. He will knock the hon. Gentleman into a substantial cocked hat in Buckingham.

Mr. Luff: Following the Minister's generous comments earlier about my speech during the main debate, I shall put

my point as charitably as I can. There may be a misunderstanding between him and Conservative Members about what paragraph 7 does. I think that he understands it, but he has not succeeded in explaining it to us. Will he do that now?
I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is wrong in his assessment; I think that paragraph 7 refers only to the guillotine, or timetable motion, on Lords messages, and not the debate on the Lords messages themselves. Will the Minister confirm that it means only that any Question on a timetable motion for Lords messages will be put forthwith, and that then there will be a debate on those messages?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has understood the situation correctly. I must plead guilty to some extent here because I had assumed, and was subsequently advised correctly, that that is the standard form of wording and it means exactly what he said. Earlier interventions led me down a path that I should perhaps not have taken.
The programme motion gives the Opposition ample time to focus on aspects of the Bill which may be of special concern to them, and I hope that the House will agree to it.

Mr. Hawkins: When my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) was responding to an earlier programme motion tabled by the Government, on Monday, she commenced her excellent remarks with a comment about the sense of unreality with which the House was approaching programme motions in these circumstances. I would go further and say that we are in an "Alice in Wonderland" world tonight, where a word means what the Minister says it means, and does not have its ordinary and natural meaning. Given the fevered speculation about the Government's general election plans, it seems somewhat bizarre to be discussing debates in April and May for the programme motion.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has just said, there is no justification for any guillotining or programming of such a Bill. Much earlier this afternoon, at the beginning of the Second Reading debate, the Minister gave the game away in answer to an intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), when he dropped the heaviest of hints that there was very little prospect of the Bill's reaching the statute book because of what he knows the Prime Minister is likely to do.

Mr. Charles Clarke: rose—

Mr. Hawkins: Before I give way to the Minister, let me say that if these were normal times and we were dealing with a normal Government and normal Ministers who believed in democracy, scrutiny and debate and who did not want to programme and guillotine every single measure, we might be able to accept the Minister's assurances; but I am afraid that, in the light of our recent experiences on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, when the Minister made statements at the Dispatch Box about when motions would be progressed and how many


Committee sittings there would be but those promises were repeatedly broken, the House and especially the Opposition cannot accept that Minister's assurances.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, entitled to say that. However, I want to place on the record the fact that I did not drop the heaviest of hints about the election date. I do not know the Prime Minister's mind. I responded directly to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), and any Opposition politician will know that, however senior they may have been, they did not know their Prime Minister's mind about election dates any better than anyone else. It would be good of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) to withdraw the suggestion that I dropped a hint about the election date, or that I know the Prime Minister's mind.

Mr. Hawkins: The record will show what the Minister said. However, the reaction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield to the Minister's hint was quintessentially one of satisfaction: he said that he had made a bold cast and not expected to land such a big fish.

Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend return to the guillotine motion and explain to the Government that our objection to the guillotine is that it stops Oppositions properly using the time and processes of the House to ensure that their voice is heard? Attacking the Opposition for doing what Oppositions have done in democratic Houses for the past 300 years is to misunderstand what the House is supposed to be about.

Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend's extensive experience means that he knows that all too well. The current Government have already developed an extremely bad reputation for curtailing debate and ignoring democracy. They regularly behave as an elective dictatorship.
Let me give my right hon. Friend some recent examples of that behaviour. There were 118 amendments to the Bill that became the Freedom of Information Act 2000, 77 of which were not debated in the House. There were 268 amendments to the Bill that became the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, 47 of which were not debated here. There were 666 amendments to the Bill that became the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, 522 of which were not debated here. Then one comes to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill, which is a substantial Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the programme motion. It is much more narrow than that.

Mr. Hawkins: I was responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, who rightly pointed out how it is necessary repeatedly to emphasise to the current Government that they are supposed to allow proper scrutiny, because on Bill after Bill since they introduced the ridiculous procedure of programming and guillotining everything, the House has not had the opportunity to do its proper job of scrutiny. Most recently and worst of all, the Criminal Justice and Police Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would allow the hon. Gentleman to say something in passing, but he seems to want to go into the detail of every Bill. That is not allowed in a debate on a programme motion.

Mr. Hawkins: I simply wanted to draw attention to the fact that we face the same problems on the current Bill as we have faced on all recent legislation. It was the Minister in his opening remarks who referred to the Criminal Justice and Police Bill and our debates on it.

Mr. Hogg: Perhaps I might help my hon. Friend. What I think he is saying is this: the Minister of State has given it as his opinion that we have sufficient time to debate the Bill, but that sort of observation has been made on previous occasions in respect of other Bills and we have not had time to consider those Bills. Is it not therefore right that we should not place any weight on what the Minister has just said?

Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. and learned Friend is right—that is precisely the point. The worst example of that was on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. The Private Security Industry Bill runs to 30 pages; it has 26 clauses and 10 pages of detailed schedules. The importance of the issues and the reason why the programme motion is wholly inappropriate were demonstrated by the Minister's right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who thought the Bill sufficiently important to speak for no less than one hour and 21 minutes. I do not know whether he will serve on the Committee; we shall have to wait and see. If, on Second Reading, he was sufficiently doubtful about whether the Bill was in a proper form to speak to the House for an hour and 21 minutes, may I strongly suggest that the artificial timetable proposed by the Minister is wholly inadequate?
On Second Reading, there was much discussion of the valuable contributions of the British Security Industry Association. However, less attention was paid to the concerns of the Joint Security Industry Council, which is the voice of the private security industry and represents a large number of professional bodies, ranging from the Association of British Insurers to the Defence Manufacturers Association, the Guild of Security Controllers, the Security Institute, the Master Locksmiths Association and the Security Industry Training Organisation mentioned in debate. The concerns of those constituent bodies, as well as of the JSIC and its chief executive Mr. Mike Welply—with whom I had a meeting yesterday—must be debated properly in Committee.
The Committee must also debate properly the concerns of the group of leading corporate investigation consultancies, which represents a number of significant companies, including Control Risks and the Armor Group. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South—speaking, I remind the Minister, from the Government Benches—concluded that the Bill was a mystery, reminding me that Winston Churchill said that Russia was
a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
I hope that I have got that quotation right. When a senior Member of Parliament who is an undoubted expert on the industry is so dissatisfied with the Government's proposals as to say that the Bill is a mystery, we must have serious concerns about proposing so few Committee sittings under the guillotine. Conservative Members disapprove of guillotines and programme motions on principle.

Mr. Michael Jack: Before my hon. Friend moves on, is he aware that consideration of the longest


Finance Bill ever presented to the House was conducted by means of a thorough debate, with no programme motion? There were as many, if not more, submissions from representative bodies to consider as those which he has enumerated. All that was done in the old-fashioned way, but everything was considered thoroughly.

Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend is right. He may remember that, when we were in government, we passed the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 during the last Parliament. It was the longest criminal justice measure then on the statute book, and we debated it for 240 hours in Committee under the old system whereby everything was scrutinised. Many Members of the then Opposition, who are now Government Members, wanted to have their say in full.
In conclusion, I feel strongly that the programme motion is entirely inappropriate. The Government should be ashamed of themselves; their own senior Members, such as the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, said that the Bill is not in an adequate form. Although we are in an artificial situation and in pre-election mode, we cannot allow the programme motion to be accepted by default.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Brevity is the soul of wit. Whenever dissolution takes place, I hope that this will be the shortest speech of this Parliament. I refer Members to column 920 of yesterday's Hansard and just say, "Ditto".

Mr. Doug Henderson: I have spoken to the House once or twice on procedural matters, and I do so tonight because I have an interest in the substantive issue. Previously, I have had an interest in my own timetable, rather than in the issue before the House. I support the timetable motion. We have a terrible tendency towards ritual in this place. We go through the same ritual night after night, after Second Readings. The House needs to re-examine our procedures, but I would be straying from the subject of the motion if I started to deal with that this evening.
The programme motion is a little artificial. Most of us do not know when the general election will take place. We can all speculate and work out whether there will be time between now and the general election to do justice to the Bill, which I hope will end up on the statute book. There are parts of the Bill that I would seek to modify, and I hope that the Government will take on board some of my suggestions on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Minister is nodding; he knows the issues to which I refer. I am merely mouthing what many of the interest groups are saying, both on the employers' side and on the workers' side, and representing the police.
The alternative to the programme motion is to go through the nonsense that we have watched happening over the past two or three years. I do not blame the Opposition; we have all got ourselves into the mess. I do not accept that democracy is the issue, as was said from the Opposition Benches. Democracy is about putting proposals to the electorate and having a system of bringing about the execution of those proposals,

with modification. I agree that that requires time for discussion, and the present issue is the efficiency of our debate. I do not condone my hon. Friends speaking longer than necessary, but until there is proper self-discipline, we need the protection of the timetable motion.

Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Although the issue may not be democracy in the terms in which he defines it, the debate is about scrutiny, which is surely one of the primary functions of a legislature.

Mr. Henderson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I want adequate time to be allocated for debate. I remember when I came to the conclusion that, because of the way in which Parliament had developed, we could not continue to operate as we have done in the 14 years I have been in Parliament. I reached that conclusion after we had spent hour after hour debating what ice cream salesmen do in St. James's park across the road, rather than debating real issues that affect the constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am not saying that that matter should not have been debated, but it did not warrant the extensive filibustering that took place. That convinced me that we needed to change our procedures. If we want the Bill to see the light of day—although events beyond our control may prevent that—we must support the Minister's proposal.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he seems to be labouring under an illusion. The people of this country elect a Parliament. It is for Parliament to scnitinise and pass Bills, and to ensure that they are effective and that the people's views are represented in the consideration of those Bills. We elect a Parliament, not just a Government. He should revise his perception of democracy.

Mr. Henderson: Of course I accept that. I do not know about the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but my constituents want things done that affect their lives. They want Parliament to act effectively. When they watch some of the goings-on in this place, they ridicule them. Unless we modernise our procedures in the way that is recommended by the programme motion—I wish that we did not need it—we will bring further discredit on this place. I ask Opposition Members to think about that. I have said my piece, and I am happy to allow others to follow in the debate.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Not for the first time during my service in this House, I intend to express a personal point of view. I do so as a member of the Modernisation Committee, to which the Minister referred. I am optimistic that the Committee will provide further guidance to the House on dealing with programming and programme motions. I think that the Minister alluded to that guidance, and I hope that the report that contains it will help the House.
I am not unsupportive of the Government, although I may pass through the other Lobby at the end of the debate. Of course, that happens in the House from time to time. I think that the House has not heeded one of the Minister's assurances. He said that the Bill would come out of Standing Committee on 1 May. I think that he said also


that there would be eight sittings. However, he told us that if the Programming Sub-Committee thought it necessary to schedule additional sittings in the light of progress made in the Standing Committee, it could do so. I have sought such an assurance in previous debates on programme motions.

Mr. Hogg: I heard the Minister's assurance, but I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for making a different point about it. The premise is that any decision will depend on whether the Minister thinks that more time is necessary. What matters, however, is whether the Committee and the House think, after speaking freely, that more time is needed. Whether or not the Government think that more time is needed does not address the fundamental problem.

Mr. Winterton: That was not my interpretation of what the Minister said. I believe that he said that if the Programming Sub-Committee felt that additional sittings were necessary, the Government would not oppose its decision. I say to the House and to my hon. Friends that I believe that we should take that assurance—perhaps I can also use the word "concession" —very seriously. It gives much reassurance to the Opposition that there will be more time for debate, if such time: proves necessary.

Mr. Hawkins: I wish that I could share my hon. Friend's optimism. However, my experience and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) with regard to the Committee that considered the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, and our knowledge of the way in which the Programming Sub-Committee operated in respect of that Bill, tell us that one cannot accept the assurances given by this Government and by this Minister in particular. Such assurances were repeatedly given and repeatedly broken. In his capacity as a member of the Modernisation Committee, my hon. Friend should undoubtedly take that on board.

Mr. Winterton: I take my hon. Friend's strictures very seriously, but I have to say that I do not agree with them. I am prepared to take the Minister's assurance seriously. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that he was not prepared to do so, but I can only say that hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about the fact that the programme motion has been considered so soon, immediately after Second Reading. I believe that this particular system will be altered.

Mr. Blunt: Like me, my hon. Friend has had an overt respect for the Minister and his word. The trouble is that the Minister told us during consideration of a programme motion on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill that there would be 16 Committee sittings. That number was then changed to 14. He told us that the motion would be tabled on a Monday, but it was then tabled on a Friday.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is debating the programme motion on the Order Paper, not another one.

Mr. Winterton: Again, I take my hon. Friend's view extremely seriously, but I have been in this place for a few years and I believe that we must use our time well. I believe also that there must be an element of trust

between the Government and the Opposition in this House. Perhaps I am alone among Conservative Members, but I have been here long enough.

Mr. David Taylor: rose—

Mr. Tyler: rose—

Mr. Winterton: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), who is also a member of the Modernisation Committee.

Mr. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the bequests that the Modernisation Committee wants to leave to the new Parliament is a refinement of the process that we discussed today? It will mean that such debates, which most people find futile, meandering and otiose, will no longer be a feature of the parliamentary scene.

Mr. Winterton: I am not prepared to divulge the contents of a report that has not yet been published. However, hon. Members, whatever their party, who represent the interests of the House are trying to create a system that is acceptable to the Government and to the Opposition.
To respond to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), the Programming Sub-Committee, under the chairmanship of a member of your Chairmen's Panel, Mr. Speaker, and not the Government will decide whether there will be one or more additional sittings in Committee. I believe that those who serve on the Chairmen's Panel are impartial and will try to represent the best interests of the House and all the parties in it.

Mr. Tyler: I hope that I will not embarrass the hon. Gentleman further by coming to his aid. Both he and I are in some difficulty because we cannot disclose the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee, but does he accept that the role of the Chairman of the Standing Committee and that of the Programming Sub-Committee will be critical to the success of our improvements? Ensuring that they work effectively gives new opportunities to Opposition parties to make sure that everything is properly discussed. One further point—

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is longer than his speech.

Mr. Tyler: Indeed, it is. If the Government table many amendments, it will be open to the Programming Sub-Committee to recommend a later end date for consideration.

Mr. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is right. The new proposals will be a great opportunity for the House, and give considerable authority to the Opposition. I hope that when they come before the House, perhaps in the next Parliament, they will be welcomed.

Mr. Hogg: Not by me.

Mr. Winterton: My right hon. and learned Friend is a distinguished former Minister and respected Member of Parliament. However, I hope that he will give me credit


for standing up for the independent voice in the years that I have been here, and that he will also acknowledge that I work in the best interests of the House. I say in front of you, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that the role of the Standing Committee Chairman will be important and influential, and can help the House to do a better job. He or she will be in an important position.
I want to express one reservation. I have said that I believe that the time allocated to the Standing Committee is adequate, but I remain anxious that the time for Report and Third Reading may prove insufficient. I repeat the argument that I have put before: Report is the only stage during which Back Benchers who were not able to speak on Second Reading and were not appointed to the Standing Committee can speak on behalf of constituents or organisations that have made representations to them. With that reservation, I thank the Minister for his concession, which I warmly welcome.

Sir Patrick Cormack: It is said that as we get older, the arteries harden. I wonder whether that has happened to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who seems to be overflowing with the milk of human kindness in his charitable regard for the Government. Whatever he says, the proposals that we have not yet had the opportunity to discuss are proposals that we do not know about. We are discussing a programme motion this evening that is tabled under motions that we know about.
If ever a Bill was tailor-made for a Special Standing Committee, followed by a proper Standing Committee, it is this one. It is not politically contentious in a partisan sense, but it is nevertheless fairly meaty. It deals with important subjects and affects the livelihoods of many people. We have already heard, in interventions, that a number of specialist groups and associations have made representations on the Bill.
If the Government intend to proceed—as the Minister honestly and genuinely does—on the assumption that this Parliament has some 14 months left to run, they should put forward a sensible and thorough proposal to ensure that the Bill is properly and thoroughly discussed. The Minister should have moved that the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee. That Standing Committee would have had the opportunity to take evidence and listen to witnesses. We should then have moved on to a proper, clause-by-clause discussion of the Bill and considered it on its merits. That is what the Minister should have proposed this evening.
Of all Bills, this is the last one that should be put in a parliamentary straitjacket. Over the past few months, because the Government appear to have worked out a foreshortened timetable for this Parliament, every Bill—I shall not dilate on any others, Mr. Speaker, because you would rightly call me to order—has been subject to a programme motion that has had little regard to its nature and complexity.

Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the House is being afflicted by a dangerous disease called neatness? We are seeking to make neat the system of parliamentary scrutiny, whereas the Government ought to

be concerned about having a bit of biodiversity. They should be determined to enable people to put forward the points that they wish to, rather than trying to box us in to a neat pattern.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I agree with my right hon. Friend, who is a great expert on biodiversity in all its aspects. Neatness and scrutiny make uncomfortable bedfellows. If we are to scrutinise a Bill, we should not be pulled up short by a timetable that pays no regard to its extent or complexity.
Speaking as someone who had 14 years' experience on the Chairmen's Panel, I think that it is perfectly possible that this Bill could be dealt with—after the Special Standing Committee procedure—in about eight sittings. It may well be that that is a reasonably realistic allocation of time. However, what is important is the quality of the legislation that comes out at the end. What is not important is precisely how many hours and minutes are taken to accomplish that task. As the Minister is nodding at what I am saying, he must feel a mite embarrassed, if not rather ashamed, that he has had to stand at the Dispatch Box and propose something that he knows—

It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order [7 November 2000].

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 139.

Division No. 168]
[10.44 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov?try NE) 
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)



Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) 


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clwyd, Ann


Ashton, Joe
Coaker, Vernon


Austin, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bailey, Adrian
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry
Coleman, Iain


Barron, Kevin
Colman, Tony


Battle, John
Connarty, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beard, Nigel
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cousins, Jim


Begg, Miss Anne
Cox, Tom


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cranston, Ross


Bennett, Andrew F
Crausby, David


Benton, Joe
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Best, Harold
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Betts, Clive
Darvill, Keith


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blizzard, Bob
Davidson, Ian


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boateng. Rt Hon Paul
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Borrow, David



Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Denham, Rt Hon John


Bradshaw, Ben
Dismore, Andrew


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dobbin, Jim


Buck, Ms Karen
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Burden, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Doran, Frank


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Cann, Jamie
Edwards, Huw


Caton, Martin
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Cawsey, Ian
Ennis, Jeff


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Clapham, Michael
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Flint,Caroline






Flynn, Paul
McWalter, Tony


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McWilliam, John


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Mallaber, Judy


Foulkes, George
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Fyfe, Maria
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Galloway, George
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gapes, Mike
Martlew, Eric


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Maxton, John


Gerrard, Neil
Meale, Alan


Gibson, Dr Ian
Merron, Gillian 


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Godsiff, Roger
Michie, Bill (Shef?ld Heeley)


Goggins, Paul
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Miller, Andrew


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Moffatt, Laura


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Grogan, John
Morley, Elliot


Hain, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)



Hamilton. Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mudie, George


Hanson, David
Mullin, Chris


Healey, John
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
 Naysmith Dr Doug


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Norris, Dan


Hendrick, Mark
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hepburn, Stephen
Olner, Bill


Heppell, John
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Pearson, Ian 


Hood, Jimmy
Perham, Ms Linda


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Pickthall, Colin


Hope, Phil
Pike, Peter L


Hopkins, Kelvin
Plaskitt, James


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley N) 
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Howells, Dr Kim
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Humble, Mrs Joan
Prosser, Gwyn


Hutton, John
Purchase, Ken


Iddon, Dr Brian
Quinn, Lawrie


Illsley, Eric
Rapson, Syd


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)



Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Rooney, Terry


Joyce, Eric
Rowlands, Ted


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Roy, Frank


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Ruddock, Joan


Khabra, Piara S
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kidney, David
Salter, Martin


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lammy, David
Savidge Malcolm


Laxton, Bob
Sawford Phil


Lepper, David
Sheerman, Barry


Leslie, Christopher
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Levitt, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Smith. Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Linton, Martin
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Lock, David
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Soley, Clive


McDonnell, John
Southworth, Ms Helen


McFall, John
Spellar, John


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Squire, Ms Rachel


McIsaac, Shona
Starkey Dr Phyllis


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Stewart David (Inverness E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stewart Ian (Eccles)


McNamara, Kevin
Stoate, Dr Howard


McNulty, Tony
Stringer Graham





Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wareing, Robert N


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Watts, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
White, Brian



Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Timms, Stephen
Wills, Michael


Tipping, Paddy
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Touhig, Don
Wood, Mike


Trickett, Jon
Woodward, Shaun


Truswell, Paul
Woolas, Phil


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Tynan, Bill
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walley, Ms Joan
Mr. David Jamieson and


Ward, Ms Claire
Mr. Jim Dowd.


NOES



Amess, David
Hammond, Philip


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hancock, Mike


Atkinson. David (Bour'mth E)
Harvey, Nick


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hawkins, Nick


Baldry, Tony
Hayes, John


Ballard, Jackie
Heald, Oliver


Beggs, Roy
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Bercow, John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Horam, John


Blunt, Crispin
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Boswell, Tim
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brady, Graham
Jackson. Robert (Wantage)


Brazier, Julian
Jenkin, Bernard


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Key, Robert


Browning, Mrs Angela
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Burnett, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Burns, Simon
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Butterfill, John
Leigh, Edward


Cash, William
Letwin, Oliver


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)



Lidington, David


Clappison, James
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Livsey, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



Loughton, Tim


Collins, Tim
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cormack, Sir Patrick
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Madel, Sir David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maples, John


Duncan, Alan
Mates, Michael


Duncan Smith, Iain
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Evans, Nigel
May, Mrs Theresa


Fabricant, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Flight, Howard
Ottaway, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Page, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Paice, James


Fox, Dr Liam
Paisley. Rev Ian


Fraser, Christopher
Paterson, Owen


Garnier, Edward
Pickles, Eric


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Redwood. Rt Hon John


Gibb, Nick
Rendel, David


Gill, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Gray, James
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Green, Damian
Ruffley, David


Grieve, Dominic
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Shepherd, Richard






Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Tyrie, Andrew


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Viggers, Peter


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Waiter, Robert


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Waterson, Nigel


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Spring, Richard 
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whittingdale, John


Streeter, Gary
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Stunell, Andrew
Willetts, David


Swayne, Desmond
Willis, Phil


Syms, Robert
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tredinnick, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Trend, Michael
Mr. Peter Luff and


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the Private Security Industry Bill [Lords]:

Standing Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.
3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 1st May 2001.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at six o'clock on that day.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at seven o'clock on that day.

6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Lords messages

7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a), (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Private Security Industry Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State for or in connection with the carrying out of his functions under that Act; and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to

LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)

Motion made,

That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:

Line 31, at end add—
`( ) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.
( ) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
( ) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],

That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest— [Mr. Mike Hall.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,

That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:

Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words "Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.

Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.

Line 52, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

Planning Application (Shrewsbury)

Mr. Paul Marsden: I present this petition with my wholehearted support as it is vital for the local economy and Shrewsbury Town football club that they have a new purpose-built, modern stadium with community sports facilities. In four years as an hon. Member, this is largest petition that I have presented to the House; it is signed by 2,281 people.

The petition states:
To the House of Commons
The petition of
The people of Shrewsbury and beyond
Declares that
They totally support the proposed New Meadow scheme for Shrewsbury Town Football Club, which is urgently required to ensure the financial survival of the Club and to improve community sports facilities.
The petitioners therefore request
That the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council to back the planning application offering Shrewsbury Town FC a fresh vision for the millennium.

To lie upon the Table.

Travellers' Camps (Skegness)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Sir Richard Body: I applied for this Adjournment debate because, after I had arranged an appointment with the Minister to receive a civic deputation from Lincolnshire, I received a message that the meeting was to be cancelled, as the Minister had something more important to do, or words to that effect. I regret that no offer of an alternative date was made.
I was put in some difficulty because, when I had to report the news to the deputation, I was asked, not unnaturally, what other date was going to be offered. I have known cancellations before, and of course all hon. Members understand that they happen—however, I will have been in the House for 40 years in October, and I have never encountered such treatment from a Minister before. I had to tell the deputation that the matter was unfortunate, and that I would have to seek some other way to make representations to the Minister on behalf of Lincolnshire. That is the reason for this Adjournment debate.
I understand that I am far from being the first Conservative Member in this Parliament to suffer a cancellation such as that. Indeed, the most recent occasion was only a few days ago: a deputation was on its way to the Minister and had to be cancelled while it was making the journey. If that is how we are to be treated, so be it, but I regret it very much.
The Minister knows the reason for the debate. East Lindsey district council, at the request of the Lincolnshire police, has applied for an exclusion order for Skegness for four days over Easter. Information has been received that there may be a return visit of the travellers who came to Skegness over the Christmas and new year holiday.
I do not know whether the Minister knows Skegness. I hope that he does: he does not live far away, although on the wrong side of the Wash. However, if he has not visited the town already, I hope that he will one day. He is not eligible to be counted as one of the elderly people who enjoy their holidays there, nor as one of the young families with children who come to the town.
Skegness caters especially for those two types of visitor, and it has a number of distinctive features. Apart from the bracing air, it has the largest and most popular of all the Butlins holiday camps. It also has the second largest and most popular theme park in the country. It has the largest concentration of caravans in Europe: indeed, were it not for the one in California that slightly outstrips it, it would have the largest caravan concentration in the world.
There are more than 20,000 caravans in the area. They are used for holidays and weekends and they cater specifically for young people. A further several thousand caravans are permanently sited as homes for people who have come to live in Skegness. Thousands of people, such as retired miners and steelworkers from Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and elsewhere, have come to Skegness to retire.
That is a short word picture of the type of people who come to Skegness. The area has many thousands of visitors at Christmas and the new year, and I hope that


the Minister will understand the effect on the town when 600 travellers descended in a long cavalcade of caravans. They broke through the barriers to the car parks and immediately began a course of behaviour in the town such that the police had to go to all the licensed premises—the hotels, restaurants, cafes and other places of entertainment—to warn them that, with great regret, they could not guarantee people's safety.
Within a short time of their arrival, a group of about 10 travellers descended on a public house. Their obscenities and intimidating behaviour were such that the police were called; but, of course, the police could not attend all the incidents. It is not surprising that all those establishments closed from the Saturday evening before Christmas until after the new year.
The effect was to turn Skegness into a ghost town. The Embassy—a major entertainment centre—had to cancel all its events during that period. The caravans were so packed around the centre that the emergency services begged for the cancellation of the events. The centre did so without a qualm, because it would have been quite impossible for the emergency services to reach it. Sadly, because the hotels had to warn people about what had happened and had to close their doors and turn people away, they suffered considerably.
Over the years, Skegness has succeeded in becoming a place that people visit for short breaks throughout the year. That is important for employment. As the Minister may know, in other holiday resorts, hotels often close down at the end of the season; they dismiss their staff, perhaps re-engaging them in the spring. That is not the policy in Skegness. Hotels try to keep open so as to retain their staff and give them full-time work all year round. By doing so, they tend to lose money in the winter months. However, they can make good that loss—just—if they do a reasonable trade over Christmas and the new year. Sadly, a serious loss was incurred. They will have to reconsider their policy unless steps are taken to prevent a recurrence of those events.
As for the public houses, almost all of them closed on the advice of the police. The police obviously did not say that the public houses had to close, but they gave strong advice that was accepted by the licensed trade. The loss has yet to be quantified, but it runs to hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds—perhaps millions. That has a serious effect on a comparatively small town.
Furthermore, people living in the town were put in fear. People stayed at home. I hope that the Minister can understand that elderly people did not wish to go out, as they were fearful about what was happening. I am sure that he will understand that parents with young children did not wish to go out and encounter such behaviour, so they stayed at home. The holiday period was ruined for many, many thousands of people—not fewer than 50,000 and probably more—by appalling behaviour. In addition, East Lindsey district council had to pay out about £10,000 to clear up the mess from the caravans.
An application for an order has been made and I understand that the Minister will consider it on Monday or Tuesday—I hope that he will do so sympathetically.
I appreciate that this is an issue of civil liberties, and that it is a serious matter to say even to 600 people that their freedom of movement should be curtailed and they

should not be allowed to visit the town of their choice. However, I hope that the Minister will understand that many other thousands of people have a freedom too, or should have a freedom—that some 50,000 people should have the freedom to visit the town of their choice and enjoy a holiday, that their children should not be put in fear, and that elderly people should be able to visit licensed premises without being intimidated.
I hope that when the Minister weighs in the balance the freedom of the 600 to descend on Skegness, he also bears in mind the freedom of all those many thousands—no fewer than 50,000—to enjoy their Easter holiday. If these travellers return and behave as they behaved when they came at Christmas, the effect on Skegness could be catastrophic.
The Minister knows, because he is a man of Norfolk, the effect that the travellers' visit had on Yarmouth. An order was made to protect Yarmouth for last Christmas. Indeed, it was because of that order that the travellers came to Skegness. I hope that he will not be prejudiced against Lincolnshire and say, "We have got them out of Norfolk; they can go to Lincolnshire again." I am sure that he will not take that view. I hope that he will consider the application sympathetically and appreciate that a serious financial loss has already been incurred, that a great deal of unhappiness has been caused and that there are great anxieties about what may happen to the town at Easter if, on Monday or Tuesday—which is when I understand a decision will be taken—he does not make an order to protect so many thousands of people.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) on securing the debate and apologise to him for some of the matters that he raised at the beginning. I certainly did, as I thought, postpone the meeting that I was to have with him and his constituents, and I did so at late notice. My normal practice is to offer alternative dates, and I am sorry if that did not happen this time. I know, for example, that I have postponed a couple of meetings with a group of Members of Parliament for Dorset and the chief constable of Dorset to discuss the situation in Dorset, and I know that that meeting is in my diary for next week, so I am not quite sure what happened in this instance, but I apologise for any discourtesy and am very happy to debate the issue now.
It is my practice—I have observed it a great deal since I have been a Minister at the Department for Education and Employment and at the Home Office—to meet delegations led by Members of Parliament because I believe that to be an important part of a Minister's job. I am therefore particularly upset that what happened on this occasion caused distress.
Unfortunately, I have never been to Skegness—it is a shaming apology to have to make. I have been to the other side of the Wash on many occasions, but I have not been to Skegness. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I have much experience of the consequences of such a traveller invasion, because over the new year 2000 a similar invasion happened in Yarmouth. It had exactly the effects that he described at Skegness. It led not only to expense—at one level that is trivial, but not in reality—but to fear and an extretnely unpleasant and damaging atmosphere in the town.
Yarmouth district council and Norfolk police applied for orders, which were agreed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to prevent travellers from massing in Great Yarmouth over Easter and Christmas last year. I am in some difficulty tonight because we have heard today that East Lindsey district council has issued a press release, saying that because of intelligence indicating that a large number of travellers are coming to Skegness over Easter, an application for an order under section 14A of the Public Order Act 1986, prohibiting trespassory assemblies in that area, has been sent to the Home Office.
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot prejudge my right hon. Friend's decision, but I can give an assurance that he will take that decision extremely rapidly so that action can be taken on the basis of it. I can also assure the hon. Gentleman—if he was making the remark in anything other than a mischievous spirit—that there is no suggestion of decanting travellers from Norfolk to other places on the east coast. The issue will be considered entirely on its merits, which is how it should be. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives information about my right hon. Friend's decision immediately after he takes it.
The powers are necessary for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. There is concern about large numbers of travellers descending on a town in the manner that he described. I understand that the encampment, although on the whole peaceful, produced a number of the results that he described, such as antisocial behaviour and other offences. The Government are clear that no criminal activity should be tolerated in respect of travellers and that they should be treated just like anyone else. There should be no sense that traveller communities are outside the law of the land; they are dealt with by the law in very precise ways. Indeed, the Home Office recently issued joint guidance with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, making it absolutely clear, beyond peradventure, that that was the case.
The law should be enforced for travellers as for all other sections of the community. It is for the police to ensure that any offence is properly investigated and that the law is enforced, but the police and local authorities have powers to direct trespassers to leave land when certain statutory conditions are met. It is an operational matter for the police to decide when and whether to use those powers. Perhaps it would be helpful in informing the debate if I were to explain some of the background.
Under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the police have the power to remove people who are trespassing with intent to take up residence, and who have been asked to leave by the landowner. That is a serious power, which can be used when certain conditions are met: when the trespassers have more than six vehicles on the land or when they have caused damage, or used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards the landowner or person acting for him. The police and local authority powers to direct trespassers to leave land under the 1994 Act are discretionary.
The power included in the 1994 Act under section 14A of the Public Order Act 1986 has been used on a number of occasions. I have mentioned the Norfolk police examples, but Wiltshire police gained an order on several

occasions to prohibit trespassory assemblies in the Stonehenge area during the summer solstice celebrations—a different type of event from that to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Kent police have gained an order prohibiting trespassory assemblies in Horsmonden to prevent a horse fair, and there are a few other examples of the police using such powers.
Section 14A of the 1986 Act can be used where the chief officer of police believes that an assembly is intended to be held in any district at a place on land to which the public have no right of access or only a limited right of access and that the assembly, first, is likely to be held without the permission of the occupier of the land, or to conduct itself in such a way as to exceed the limits of any permission that he has given or the limits of the public's right of access; and, secondly, may result in serious disruption to the life of the community—which may be the sort of issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers—or where the land, or a building or monument on it is of historical, architectural or scientific importance, if significant damage to the land, building or monument may result. Those are the basic conditions under which the provisions of 1986 Act can be operated.
I cannot prejudge my right hon. Friend's decision on the application, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall address the situation very effectively. I understand that Lincolnshire police have agreed with a number of other east coast forces to form a joint operation, which would pool resources and apply the same robust approach to incursions anywhere in the joint area using available legislation and intelligence, so that traveller movements can be better anticipated in future.
I wish to say a word about intelligence. It has been difficult to predict where groups of travellers will assemble on significant occasions, such as Easter and new year, and we are actively considering ways of improving our capacity to do that. The Lincolnshire police initiative is one example of that. I do not accept that the decision of Yarmouth and Norfolk police necessarily led to the travellers being decanted to Skegness in the way that has been suggested. However, an approach that simply leads to the problem moving from one place to another is not an appropriate way of proceeding. That is why we welcome the joint approach in which Lincolnshire police and other forces are engaged. We shall support that approach in whatever way we can.
I think that I have said what I can say about the issue tonight. I reaffirm that we shall take a decision as rapidly as we conceivably can and that we shall take full account of the context of the application made by the police and East Lindsey district council. We will also take account of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made in the debate and we will communicate with him as soon as we take a decision, whatever that decision may be.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not able to prejudge what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will decide when he receives the application, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the matter will be dealt with expeditiously.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Deferred Divisions

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

That the draft Local Authorities (Alternative Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 362, Noes 134.

Division No. 167]



AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Allan, Richard
Clelland, David


Allen, Graham
Clwyd, Ann


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Coaker, Vernon



Coffey, Ms Ann


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Coleman, Iain


Ashton, Joe
Colman, Tony


Austin, John
Connarty, Michael


Bailey, Adrian
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Ballard, Jackie
Cooper, Yvette


Banks, Tony
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry
Corbyn, Jeremy


Battle, John
Cousins, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Cranston, Ross


Beard, Nigel
Crausby, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Beggs, Roy
Cummings, John


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)



Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire


Benton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam


Best, Harold
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Blackman, Liz
Darvill, Keith


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Blizzard, Bob
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Davidson, Ian


Borrow, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)



Brake, Tom
Denham, Rt Hon John


Breed, Colin
Dismore, Andrew


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dobbin, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Donohoe, Brian H


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Doran, Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Dowd, Jim


Burden, Richard
Drown, Ms Julia


Burnett, John
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burstow, Paul
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Edwards, Huw


Cable, Dr Vincent
Efford, Clive


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Feam, Ronnie


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Field, Rt Hon Frank



Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Flint, Caroline


Cann, Jamie
Flynn, Paul


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caton, Martin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cawsey, Ian
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foulkes, George


Chidgey, David
Fyfe, Maria


Clapham, Michael
Galloway, George


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)



Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gibson, Dr Ian





Gidley, Sandra
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Linton, Martin


Godsiff, Roger
Livsey, Richard


Goggins, Paul
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lock, David


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Love, Andrew


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McAvoy, Thomas


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McCabe, Steve


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Grocott, Bruce
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Grogan, John



Gunnell, John
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Hain, Peter
McCrea, Dr William


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McFall, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McGrady, Eddie


Hancock, Mike
McIsaac, Shona


Hanson, David
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Harris, Dr Evan
McNamara, Kevin


Healey, John
McNulty, Tony


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
MacShane, Denis


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hendrick, Mark
McWalter, Tony


Hepburn, Stephen
McWilliam, John


Heppell, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hill, Keith
Mallaber, Judy


Hinchliffe, David
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hoey, Kate
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hood, Jimmy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hope, Phil
Martlew, Eric


Hopkins, Kelvin
Maxton, John


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Merron, Gillian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Howells, Dr Kim
Michie, Bill (Shef?ld Heeley)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moffatt, Laura


Hutton, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morley, Elliot


Illsley, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B?ham Yardley)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam



Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)



Jamieson, David
Mountford, Kali


Jenkins, Brian
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Mudie, George


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Norris, Dan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Oaten, Mark


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Olner, Bill


Joyce, Eric
Öpik, Lembit


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pearson, Ian


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Perham, Ms Linda


Khabra, Piara S
Pickthall, Colin


Kidney, David
Pike, Peter L


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Plaskitt, James


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pond, Chris


Kingham, Ms Tess
Pope, Greg


Kirkwood, Archy
Pound, Stephen


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Lammy, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Laxton, Bob
Primarolo, Dawn


Lepper, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Leslie, Christopher
Purchase, Ken


Levitt, Tom
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Quinn, Lawrie


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rammell, Bill






Rapson, Syd
Stunell, Andrew


Raynsford, Nick
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rendel, David



Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)



Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Temple—Morris, Peter


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thompson, William


Roy, Frank
Timms, Stephen


Ruddock, Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Todd, Mark


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Salter, Martin
Touhig, Don


Sanders, Adrian
Trickett, Jon


Sarwar, Adrian
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Sarwar, Mohammad
Truswell, Paul


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh?ton SE)


Shaw Jonathan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sheerman Barry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Skinner, Dennis
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Walker, Cecil


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wareing, Robert N


Soley, Clive
Watts, David


Southworth, Ms Helen
Webb, Steve


Speller, John
White, Brian


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wicks, Malcolm


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Steinberg, Gerry



Stevenson, George
William, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Winnick, David


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wood, Mike


Stoate, Dr Howard
Woodward, Shaun


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Woolas Phil


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Worthington, Tony


Stringer, Graham
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wyatt, Derek


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bottomey, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Amess, David
Brady, Graham


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Brooke Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Burns, Simon


Beresford, Sir Paul
Butterfill, John


Blunt, Crispin
Cash, William


Body, Sir Richard
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Boswell, Tim



Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Chope, Christopher





Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McIntosh, Miss Anne



MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Collins, Tim
Madel, Sir David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Major, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
Malins, Humfrey


Curry, Rt Hon David
Mates, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Day, Stephen
May, Mrs Theresa


Duncan, Alan
Norman, Archie


Duncan Smith, Iain
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Evans, Nigel
Ottaway, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Page, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Paice, James


Flight, Howard
Paterson, Owen


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Pickles, Eric


Fox, Dr Liam
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fraser, Christopher
Prior, David


Garnier, Edward
Randall, John


Gibb, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Gill, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gillan, Mrs Cherly
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gray, James 
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Green, Damian
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Grieve, Dominic
Ruffley, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
St Aubyn, Nick


Hague, Rt Hon William
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Shepherd, Richard


Hammond, Philip
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hawkins, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Hayes John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Heald Oliver
Spicer, Sir Michael


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Spring, Richard


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Horam, John
Steen, Anthony


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Streeter, Gary


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Swayne, Desmond


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Syms, Robert


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jenkin, Bernard
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Key, Robert
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Tredinnick, David


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Trend, Michael


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tyrie, Andrew


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Walter, Robert


Lansley, Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Letwin, Oliver
Wells, Bowen


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lidington, David
Whittingdale, John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wilkinson, John


Llwyd, Elfyn
Willetts, David


Loughton, Tim
Wilshire, David


Luff, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Question accordingly agreed to.